Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science/Workshop

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

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

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I do not believe that, at this time, singling out any specific editor would be productive. &mdash; Coren (talk) 07:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:


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


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


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


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


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


 * He has already had a 1 year civility parole. If that didn't work, how would this?  If that did work, why is this needed?  Either way, this is useless.  (It didn't work, obviously, but this is useless even if someone thinks SA is civil.)  GRBerry 23:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well-intentioned but very likely to cause drama. Little good would come of this. RyanGerbil10 (Four more years!) 05:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Civility paroles are misguided. We are all subject to civility all the time (ahem), there is no need for any extra burden William M. Connolley (talk) 21:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per William's comment above. In addition, he is already on probation, which has all but failed. seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  13:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose, per comment by Coren. I think that maybe a clerk should/could remove the proposals that comment on specific editors rather than on how to make fringe science areas more productive to be edited.  There is a lot of proposals that are now very personal in opinions about editors and not addressing how the project could be helped by specific dirctions by the committee which is what I thought and continue to believe is the purpose of this case.  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  14:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Template
2)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
4)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Questions to the parties
=Proposed final decision=

Two wrongs don't make a right
1) Incivility is not a part of WP:DR, and is not an acceptable response to, or remedy for, civil POV pushing.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Seems WP is so debased we have to ask the ArbCom to say this. —— Martinphi    Ψ~Φ —— 23:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Jim Butler (t) 11:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong support. If existing remedies and tools don't solve perceived problems, either develop new tools (in a civil manner) or accept that not everyone agrees with your perception of the problem. Use of incivility to enforce new or existing rules is not an acceptable procedure. ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 01:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Already clear wiki policy, pointless to restate, and the section name doesn't fit the proposal William M. Connolley (talk) 21:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * On your last point: wrong #1 = civil POV pushing; wrong #2 = incivility; hoped-for right = more NPOV and better encyclopedia.  Nu? --Backin72 (n.b.) 10:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose Already in policy and there are already methods to deal with incivility.  Editors might not like the outcome of how some civility issues are dealt with but they are already being dealt with by the community.  So I don't see a need for a proposal for this arbcom to deal with. -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  14:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Within reason. Editors should not degrade the collegial atmosphere. —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 23:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Jim Butler (t) 11:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Dubious logical syllogism deduction. Mathsci (talk) 15:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Both invalid and unsound. Invalid because the conclusion is not supported by the premiss.  Unsound, because the premiss is false.  Nor is it a syllogism, Mathsci. Peter Damian (talk) 19:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * But a 'dubious' deduction would not be a deduction, would it? Peter Damian (talk) 11:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * VIth form debating society is third door on the left next to the fire extinguishers. Bring your own biscuits.Mathsci (talk) 18:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Talk abut getting bogged down in minutiae. Martinphi's formulation conveys the idea well, doesn't it? --Jim Butler (t) 12:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No not at all. In my experience the problem with pseudoscientific presentation on Wikipedia is that its proponents are incapable of putting their ideas in the form of coherent, logical language. The question is not whether the formulation 'conveys the idea well', but what idea is meant to be conveyed in the first place.  But as soon as you try to explain the flaws in logic, you get accused of 'getting bogged down in minutiae'.  Peter Damian (talk) 13:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * How about "get off your high horse"? That sound like a good one? --Jim Butler (t) 22:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Act only on a maxim whereby thou canst will it should become a universal law. —— Martinphi    Ψ~Φ —— 06:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. The addition of Martinphi's proverb makes it a true syllogism (I think?); in any case, I agree with the conclusion. ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 01:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "If everyone persistently violated Wikiquette, Wikipedia would collapse. Act only on a maxim whereby thou canst will it should become a universal law.  Therefore, there are no exceptions to Wikiquette, no matter how noble an editor's agenda may be. "  This is still not valid.  Try "If everyone persistently violated Wikiquette, Wikipedia would collapse.  If anyone violates Wikiquette, everyone violates Wikiquette.  Wikipedia must not collapse, therefore no one should persistently violate Wikiquette".  Peter Damian (talk) 11:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * How is it invalid? Try this:  "If some people violate Wikquette while others do not, those who violate it have an unfair advantage, and it's counterproductive to the goals of Wikipedia (NPOV) to allow some editors to have an unfair advantage.  It wouldn't work to solve this problem by letting everyone violate it, so let's solve it by letting no one violate it." ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 16:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That is not even an argument. That is just a series of statements. An argument is one whose conclusions follow logically from its premisses, that is, such that the conclusion cannot be false when the premisses are true.  For example, it does not logically follow from the fact that some people violate Wikiquette while some do not, that those who violate it have an advantage, or an unfair advantage.  Peter Damian (talk) 16:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't. ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 16:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As before: we already have rules for civility. Most people obey them, but in some cases they need enforcing, and it will always be necessary to use judgement to enforce them William M. Connolley (talk) 21:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I cannot support this: the (horrible) term "Wikiquette" is decidedly amorphous and arbitrary, so it's quite foolish to impose black-and-white legislation on a pack of gray crayons. [Apologies for the substandard, strained metaphor.] If presented, I'd consider supporting an actual principle statement of the golden rule... &mdash; Scientizzle 01:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose There are rules for civility.  The community decides on civility and does the enforements.  I don't see a need for this proposal either.  I think the way it is worded it will cause more drama than needed. -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  14:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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

Template
1) Implement flagged revisions for science articles.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. A better solution than raising the incivility level, which SA has done, and defended as necessary.  Bold, yes.  But better than the status quo, and the sooner we get away from the reality and perception of "wikiality", the better.  --Backin72 (n.b.) 20:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Standard. Jehochman Talk 13:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree. —— Martinphi    Ψ~Φ —— 23:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree. seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  13:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * But consensus does not mean "a small group of people hanging around the talk page of an article on a controversial topic banding together to vote to take actions that violate the clearly stated community wide consensus that built policies like WP:RS, WP:NPOV" and so forth, which is unfortunately what is happening on many articles on fringe topics. Consensus on topics that effect hundreds of articles should not be fought on every single article one by one by whomever happens to be hanging out there, especially as the people most likely to be hanging around a fringe topic article are followers of that fringe belief. We need consistent application of policies, not coordinated gaming of the system. DreamGuy (talk) 17:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You forgot that at least as many debunkers hang around. I agree, this is very well put.  —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 23:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't forget it because who hangs around isn't ultimately what should matter, policy should matter. Community consensus should always beat local talk page consensus. DreamGuy (talk) 17:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Mmmmhmmm, that's the main way I get rid of debunking, is to draw in outside editors. —— Martinphi    Ψ~Φ —— 05:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 02:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. Though this too is part of policy. I have a problem though with the word 'polite' in a way.  Sometimes editors claim that a comment is uncivil though it may not be too others.  Just a thought, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  14:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Standard. Jehochman Talk 13:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree. seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  13:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Standard, but so often used as a rod to beat the backs of those who are fighting to maintain scientific consensus. Peter Damian (talk) 19:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is that endlessly pushing the same counter-encyclopedic agenda with the same cherry-picking from the same unreliable sources is not considered a breach of decorum. Expressing frustration at such tactics is, often, considered a breach of decorum. MastCell Talk 20:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I subscribe to Giano's version of civility where actions speak louder than words. Argumentum ad nauseum and the other polite, disruptive tactics are grounds for banning an editor from a locus of dispute. Perhaps I will rewrite this definition of decorum to include those thoughts. Jehochman Talk 22:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I somewhat disagree with mastcell. I think that repetitious argumentation is disruption, the challenge is getting enough attention from someone to show that, without creating a whole festival of dramatic activity.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * In these debates, both sides, since they are ideologically driven, repeat ad nauseum. Further, those who are NPOV repeat ad nauseum, since they are talking to ideologues who won't compromise.  Don't act like the debate is between NPOV and pro.  It's between pro and con with NPOV caught in the middle- or leaving the article. —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 23:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's not proponents v. neutral point of view most of the time, but rather some mix of pro and con view points that struggle to be phrased neutrally. And anyone who repeats ad nauseum is distrupting and should be delt with appropriately.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * My point was that repeating ad nauseum is not necessarily a bad thing, but a symptom. If you explain over and over to a non-NPOV editor what NPOV is, that isn't disruptive.  —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 00:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. In reply to Peter Damian:  if so, then perhaps some of those who wish to maintain what they consider to be scientific consensus need to find other methods to do so. I agree with Martinphi that repetition is not necessarily disruptive; however, opinions differ as to what is NPOV. ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 02:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There should be no hindrance of whatever sort - pretended incivility, accusations about behaviour, and so on, that prevent scientific consensus being presented on Wikipedia. Are you saying there should be a hindrance? Peter Damian (talk) 13:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying "there should be a hindrance". I'm saying that incivility should not be used as a tool to enforce (what one perceives as) scientific consensus.  When it's clear and obvious to the community what the scientific consensus is and what the article should say, then there are other methods that will work to achieve that goal.  The problem comes when it seems clear and obvious to some editors but not to others. Believing that one is right is not an excuse to override policy or broad consensus. ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 16:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Jehochman's statement and Martinphi comment as a logical extension. As well, editors, their behaviours, and the material/articles edited should not be conflated. All editors have a POV simply because they are individuals. POV must be set aside as nearly as possible to edit. Lengthy discussion can be symptematic of POV leakage into the discussion. In such instances behavioural policies move into place to protect the editing environment. If behaviour breaks down so has also non-neutral editing since breakdown of behaviour indicates personality has entered the discussion in a major way. Behavioural policy protects the editors, the editing, and the general environment and should not be lightly tossed aside ever in favour of so called good editing. Editing is not good of it means the editor's personality (POV) has intruded. If the editor's personality has intruded enough to become uncivil an article by extension has reduced possibilities of being written  in a neutral manner.(olive (talk) 17:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC))

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * This is in line with one of our pillars; and I should add the oft-neglected pillar. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia is so often quoted to remind editors about what it isn't that what it is occasionally falls by the wayside.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 06:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Standard. Jehochman Talk 13:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Under SPOV, we represent mainstream science. Under NPOV we present all sides of an argument according to WP:WEIGHT.  The Committee has to choose which it means.  If our editing must be "in line with" a particular POV, it cannot be NPOV. —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 23:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, our editing must be "in line" with the best reliable sources on the subject, and to edit with that goal in mind validates NPOV rather than negating it.  Here is the central dispute in a nutshell: there are people editing Wikipedia who don't believe in the fundamental purpose of an encyclopedia or the core policies of Wikipedia.  As to the "SPOV" vs "NPOV" distinction, this is an artificial distinction that this editor has been  trying unusuccessfully to sell for the better part of the year. "SPOV" was never accepted as a useful concept and was never adopted; it is generally accepted that the purpose of an encyclopedia is to represent the mainstream view of a subject, whether science or any other subject. Woonpton (talk) 15:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If you "represent the mainstream view" of certain fringe topics, you automatically violate NPOV. —— Martinphi    Ψ~Φ —— 05:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree. seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  13:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * However, Wikipedia does this via the definition of 'reliable sources'. Peter Damian (talk) 19:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that Martinphi distinguishes between a scientific point of view and a neutral point of view seems extremely problematic. It appears to be his own personal interpretation. It does not seem in any way to reflect wikipedia core policies and should be examined in detail by the arbitration committee. (MastCell has subsequently added evidence about exactly this point.) Mathsci (talk) 05:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Note to Coren and the rest of the ArbCom. I've been saying that the general consensus of editors on these articles is SPOV leaning debunker. I'm not just making things up.  I'm not interpreting things till they are far away from the source.  Mathsci's statement is clearer than some, but it is the general consensus, and I can give you many quotes like that. Either take a stand against debunking/SPOV, or just allow WP to be that way... but if you allow it to be that way, please let's change the rules formally. Let's not lie.  This is what's been going on for years.  You have to do something, and this is your last chance because nearly all the more neutral editors are gone already. —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 06:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no such thing as an "NPOV editor". Anyone who thinks they are is deluding themselves, and I know at least one editor who has claimed to be such an editor (I'm not speaking of yourself). We all have our POV, which is a good thing, but we also should aspire to edit in an NPOV manner. No one has an inherently NPOV. NPOV is a useful and invaluable contruct for making this a unique encyclopedia. It's not a natural human trait. -- Fyslee (talk) 06:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Fyslee, I changed it. —— Martinphi    Ψ~Φ —— 06:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. -- Fyslee (talk) 07:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Some thoughts.... Speaking of NPOV and SPOV, the SPOV functions in a manner similar to Wikipedia's sourcing policies and other policies. They are aligned with each other. Why? Because Wikipedia editors think like scientists and skeptics, if they are following policy. Scientists and skeptics want verification for things. Wikipedia wants verification too. Scientists and skeptics want to know how reliable and valid a piece of information is. Wikipedia wants reliable, valid information. Claims, anecdotes, and unsourced content just don't qualify. Critical thinking is essential to Wikipedia. (Paraphrased from someone else, I'm not sure who.) By demanding that editors follow existing policy, we are already requiring them to use the scientific method for verifying sources. The typical alternative medicine and fringe thinking patterns, where anecdotes and wishful thinking are good enough, just don't work here, which may be why those editors are often flakes who run afoul of our policies. Fortunately their sources are likewise flakey and rarely qualify as V & RS, IOW they run into sourcing problems, while SPOV editors have an abundance of V & RS available, because those sources are written using the scientific method, with peer-review and fact checking. They are simply better. The truth will out. Verifiable reality really is a trump card here. -- Fyslee (talk) 07:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Certainly, Fyslee, which is why the word "pseudoskeptic" comes in handy. No good editor has anything against skepticism, if sourced.  Debunking, or the application of pseudoskepticism, however, violates basic WP policy. —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 05:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The wording could use a tweak. --TS 14:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. See my comment to Tony Sidaway's first principle. I agree with Martinphi that SPOV and NPOV are not necessarily the same thing. Wikipedia policy is to present NPOV. Often this is interpreted as being the same as SPOV for many articles, which is fine, but for some articles it is not the same thing.  The Arbitration Committee may wish to direct the community to work on defining NPOV more precisely. ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 02:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Science has no point of view. Science is a method.  Peter Damian (talk) 13:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with that, but all people (editors in our case) do have a point of view. And management of that point of veiw to have neutral articles is our goal.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Science, even ideal science, has a POV. For example, that the scientific method is a way to understand the universe.  Other POVs hang on to science's skirts, such as materialism, or "energyism."  Another POV is that logic is a valid means of debate.  Another, that insular groups of people are best at deciding whether or not something is valid, per peer review.  Just examples. —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 05:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose. Most community comments to the proposal for a WP:Mainstream have been negative. A gradual adoption of a new policy WP:Mainstream via a number of ArbCom rulings would break the core principle of NPOV according to which different POVs are represented according to their prominence. NPOV already gives the Mainstream view the upper hand. I fear that every new ArbCom ruling in favour of a WP:Mainstream will be abused by the pro-establishment POV pushers to suppress legitimate minority views and establish a pro-industry, pro-government, pro-establishment hidden political right-wing agenda. MaxPont (talk) 06:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * On the assumption that Encyclopedias are generally expected really means Wikipedia should be expected, then it isn't clear that this is standard, and is worth considering for that reason. In which case, as the discussion above indicates, it isn't really clear what this proposal means; but arbcomm discussion of it might be useful William M. Connolley (talk) 20:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * So the principle should then perhaps be as follows: Encyclopedias are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with current mainstream scientific thought. Wikipedia, however, forms an exception to this general expectation. --Lambiam 01:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Disagree. Attempting to define Mainstream, an overarching, and highly generalized term is in itself a heavily POV position. Science is correctly a verb not a noun - a method, and is process driven. Often on Wikipedia it becomes a general terms for topic areas and an ideological viewpoint. Each article must be written on individual basis from NPOV, the mother principle. SPOV assumes a position (read viewpoint) based on an incorrect understanding and definition of the word science. An article's subject or topic may have aspects to it that are defined, proven or disproved by scientific research. The article in and of itself should not be defined as "science"-a misnomer.(olive (talk) 17:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC))


 * No brainer Support, but pointing out that in certain article contexts, this statement is a logical consequence of NPOV and RS. After wording clarification per WC's comments, it might be prudent for arbcomm to clarify when this is the case.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. Per comments by Baccyak4H.  I think that this is also part of the core policy.  I see fringe theory to be dealt with by WP:CON, WP:Weight and lets not forget WP:MEDRS. -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  14:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Standard. Jehochman Talk 13:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Conflicts with 3 "Encyclopedic coverage of science," and with the comments of most editors here and the attitude of most editors presenting evidence. —— Martinphi    Ψ~Φ —— 23:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree. seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  13:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Support. ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 02:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. In line with Jimbo Wales vision for Wikipedia MaxPont (talk) 15:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * oppose (the motion, not the policy). Waste of time: already non-negotiable policy. Arbcomm should not be re-iterating policy. This feels like some kind of attempt to creep up on what you actually want to say: in which case, please just say it without these elaborate preliminaries William M. Connolley (talk) 19:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Support the first part...but: would clarify instead as, Wikipedia self defines itself as a collecting place for knowledge ,and  "current state of thought on a topic" may require a little more POV than is appropriate on this encyclopedia and is possibly too general. Wikipedia self defines very well so this particular statement may be redundant and the wording not quite accurate to Wikipedia's definition.(olive (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC))


 * Support.-- Crohnie Gal Talk  14:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * From WP:NOT. Even if an idea is correct, Wikipedia is not for marketing ideas. Wikipedia reports; it does not argue.  Jehochman Talk 13:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree. Could you write it to make it better cover biased wording per WTA?  That is one of the major problems. —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 23:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree. seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  13:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * While true, based upon other comments it seems User:Jehochman has a peculiar way of interpreting that, as he has been labeling overwhelming scientific consensus as mere propaganda. Wikipedia reports and does it in a way the accurately represents both the arguments of various sides but also how seriously they are taken by the academic world at large. If a certain fringe theory is a fringe theory, someone reading the article needs to know that right away from something in the text of the lead or first subsection -- and of course doing so by appropriate sourcing and neutral language objectively describing the mainstream scientific opinion. Not including this information not only slants the whole context of the article but ends up being propaganda for the minority view. DreamGuy (talk) 17:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems to be wikilawyering to suggest that this part of WP:NOT was applicable to mainstream science (see Jehochman's companion proposal below where he clarifies his use of the word "advocacy"). One of the goals of wikipedia is surely to promote an increase in the knowledge of mainstream science amongst its readership. Mathsci (talk) 17:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Fortunately scientific consensus is not 'marketing ideas'. Wikipedia reports scientific consensus.  What's the problem?  Peter Damian (talk) 19:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That is my understanding. I am not sure why others feel the need to battle over facts.  Just spell them out, and if anybody is behaving unreasonably, use dispute resolution to stop them from disrupting. Jehochman Talk 22:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I lurked through the cold fusion ARB process, and what the issue is is that people disagree over what the actual facts are. The CF discussion pretty much boiled down to "That's not a reliable source", "Yes it is", "No it isn't"....There was a lot of WP:IDHT on both sides. For me, my hope is that we can figure out how to handle fringe sources on fring subjects. I would hate for WP to become like those "documentaries" about the Loch Ness Monster that leave viewers thinking it might actually exist.Quietmarc (talk) 19:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Once upon a time Advocacy redirected to Association of Members' Advocates, referring to a form of advocacy that – although not successful – was not considered abuse of Wikipedia. Also now, the advocacy of adherence to the policies and generally accepted guidelines of Wikipedia is a good thing. So presumably the meaning of "advocacy" in the proposed principle has to be interpreted as set forth in the proposed guideline it is wikilinked to. In that case, apart from the issue of a potentially particular interpretation by the proposer, accepting this principle will have the effect of elevating the status of a recently proposed guideline that has not seen much discussion to that of an actually effective principle of Wikipedia law. There also is the appearance of a conflict of interest inasmuch as the proposer here is also the proposer and main advocate of the proposed guideline. --Lambiam 08:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong support. I find that advocacy by editors seems to cause a lot of drama and less WP:RS partially because the topic is too emotional to stay within the core policies. An example of advocacy causing WP:disruption, WP:TE, WP:Soap  Etc.  can be seen at Talk:Chronic fatigue syndrome.  At the talk page your will see very active advocacy that are there, imho, to push for their pet peeves and for WP:TRUTH  This is self admitted by many editors on the talk page which they are actively related to advocacy on internet bulletin boards off site but still shows, to me anyways, that advocates sometimes have a problem with working in WP:NPOV and core policies in a neutral way. -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  15:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Agree that debunking can damage articles. But also agree with what TS said: "We have to state, in effect, that in our review of reliable sources according to our content policies, the popular claims are without basis.". But such reporting of debunking should be done dispassionately and without accompanying baiting and rancour on the talk pages. Carcharoth (talk) 17:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * A novel proposal. A debunker may be correct in their assertions, but the tone of a debunking piece is not suitable for an encyclopedia.  Our article on colon cleansing may report that the practice is unnecessary and potentially dangerous.  However, Wikipedia itself should avoid using a term like quackery to describe a subject.  (Reporting that X calls Y quackery may be appropriate sometimes.)  We should use precise, accurate terminology, and avoid rhetoric. Jehochman Talk 13:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Novel indeed. If I were to say I agree, I'd have to disrupt the wiki by putting it ten foot high letters. Also fully agree with Jehochman's comment. —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 23:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


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


 * I am concerned that this proposal (re)defines a widely-used term or concept in a particularly negative way. I fear that such a definition will be used to frame subsequent discussions or remedies in a harmful manner.  Our article on debunker links to a neutral definition which accurately reflects the way that the term is actually used.
 * Debunk: verb...to expose or excoriate (a claim, assertion, sentiment, etc.) as being pretentious, false, or exaggerated: to debunk advertising slogans.
 * Debunk: tr. v....To expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of: debunk a supposed miracle drug. - Dictionary.com
 * Exposing claims and assertions which are false, pretentious, or exaggerated is a key part of evaluating sources for reliability, maintaining an appropriate perspective in articles, and avoiding overly-zealous reporting of fringe topics in Wikipedia. (If anything, the proposed (re)definition turns the situation on its head.  Debunkers are often responding to advocates who have sought "to dismiss and damage the reputation of a subject through the use of rhetoric or argumentation".)
 * If there are specific user-conduct issues to be addressed, then describe them in a FoF. There's no need to create a label.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If there are specific user-conduct issues to be addressed, then describe them in a FoF. There's no need to create a label.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


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


 * Debunking is a core concept to understanding mainstream handling of fringe science. Respected scientists doing nothing other than their jobs of science routinely debunk fringe claims as a matter of day to day operations. Trying to claim that debunking means ridicule or to suggest that by its very nature the act of debunking is hostile, uncivil, etc. is wikilawyering to a shocking degree. The idea that this would even be offered up seriously by someone who had some involvement in editing fringe-related topics and who took it upon himself to supposedly act as a neutral administrator capacity is, frankly, extremely troubling. It's essentially actively pushing an extreme anti-science and anti-rational thought agenda. DreamGuy (talk) 17:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * While rhetorical excess is to be avoided, there are ways to provide an neutral debunking of an idea. This proposal seems to be getting at the folks who spend time trying to 'debunk' other editors, which is a problem.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Debunking other editors is not a problem... in fact it is a vital process in the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. You might as well be saying that any attempt to prove that what another editor wants in the encyclopedia doesn't meet our criteria is automatically uncivil. A proposed finding has to be worded accurately and say what it means. We shouldn't have to peer under the hood to try to assume what he really means and approve that, especially when it seems likely from other comments that he means exactly what he says. DreamGuy (talk) 17:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * when the 'debunking' is of editors and not their ideas it is a problem. I don't support this proposal as written.  It doesn't deal with an actual problem.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


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


 * To be honest, Jehochman has a point. The Arbitration Committee overstepped its bounds by passing the fringe science definitions, and it's really made more heat than light, and FRINGE tends to be used more for demonising non-mainstream viewpoints than actually keeping neutral (e.g. the furore over the Rosalind Picard article a few months ago). It's really a problem in cases where there is a vocal yet minority viewpoint. Take for example, Scientology. While I take the side of 4chan in that it's a crackpot religion, our article shouldn't say that. Yet our article on Scientology isn't neutral. Suffice it to say that, if they came to GAC or FAC, I would not support any fringe articles because we focus too much on the scientific viewpoint (which is a viewpoint none-the-less, and shouldn't, per NPOV, be presented as the one and true viewpoint) which ends up on losing a lot of certainly historical and maybe sociological context, and ends up with really stunted writing, which, while passing NPOV, tends more-often-than-not to fail WEASEL. Take for example, the ID article. While it is an exemplary article in the FRINGE area of articles, it does betray our content policies in some places, even as early as the third paragraph. Remember what WP:MORALIZE (part of NPOV) says: "You won't even need to say [Saddam Hussein] was evil. That is why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man"—we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately, and the voices of the dead cry out afresh in a way that makes name-calling both pointless and unnecessary." While the ID article does do this, the other articles don't because of how FRINGE is used. We really need to retool FRINGE to be a useful subset of NPOV, and not just a weapon for silencing the unscientific minority or accusing administrators of POV pushing when they aren't. Discouraging people from the current obsession of lead-section vague debunking, and instead focusing more on the historical and social contexts of non-science, will yield better articles and a much more pleasant environment. Sceptre (talk) 18:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I said "cases where there is a vocal yet minority viewpoint", which encompasses things like Scientology. And the title of the guideline is fringe theories, not fringe science, which explicitly includes any article with minority viewpoints. It's all the same, really: proponents of leading theory vs proponents of challenging theory duking it out on Wikipedia. Sceptre (talk) 19:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So if they're not viewpoints, why is it an NPOV issue? Hint: it wouldn't be. And this is really the problem with people like you and SA: you immediately label anyone who opposes you as trolls. Struck per this. Daniel (talk) 04:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC) I'm all for a scientific outlook, but not in the current way. Sceptre (talk) 19:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As said above, debunking is a side effect of science. It's science 101. To make up an example, if the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the British National Health Service, and the Therapeutic Products Directorate of Canada all say a given homeopathic remedy has the same net effect on you as if you'd never consumed it, that's not negative. rootology ( C )( T ) 19:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Correct. Those would be factual statements that we can repeat.  I am concerned about statements like, "Homeopaths are charlatans who rob and put their clients lives at risk."  That sort of rhetoric is not for Wikipedia. Jehochman Talk 22:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Not correct. Science uses falsifiability, not debunking.  Also, USFDA and other sources said that homeopathic remedies have the same effect as placebo, not that it had no effect.    Pcarbonn (talk) 09:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not sure how this engages with the current issue. Exposing fraudulent or fringe views is of itself original research and does not belong in Wikipedia.  Careful citation of authoritative sources (and, importantly, exposing poor or misleading or even fraudulent citation) should be enough.  And the use of rhetoric and argumentation is poor encyclopedic practice.  Neither of these are problematic in the case of ScienceApologist, who has an excellent grasp of how citation should work, and of assessing reliable sources.  Peter Damian (talk) 19:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In my comment above, I cite a source, and show two edits I made. That's the point I am trying to make.  It is not our purpose to expose, discredit or warn.  We simply report what the reliable sources say.  QuackWatch is not as good a source of medical information as the New England Journal of Medicine, for instance.  I am making a simple point.  Various folks are jumping to wild conclusions about what I mean.  Jehochman Talk 20:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. We should use, and adopt the tone of, the best (i.e. the best academic) sources available. Such sources are rarely written with an intent to expose, discredit or warn. Instead, they may be written from an anthropological, sociological, or psychological perspective. Such sources do make clear that the topic is a "fringe" topic, and indicate to the reader how far removed from the mainstream it is, but they are not in competition with the fringe world view. They simply study and describe it. Ideally, primary sources of opponents like QuackWatch should (almost) be treated the same way as primary sources of proponents: quoted only to the extent they are quoted by secondary sources which describe the conflict. Jayen  466  00:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Quackwatch is recommended by many mainstream medical organisations, the US government, and many other similar sources. Why should something well within the mainstream fold be treated as equivalent to some collection of advocates that noone recommends but themselves and other half-bit promotional websites? Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 14:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that. Quackwatch specifically does actually have a small number of top-class citations in scholarly literature, as well as being subject to occasional scholarly criticism (I guess that's par for the course). But I would give preference to scholarly, non-advocacy sources. They'll likely say the same thing, but say it in a more matter-of-fact way.  Jayen  466  12:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Debunking is how we examine arguments to see if they stand up. If somebody argues that we should mention Genesis in an article about human evolution, I'll examine his arguments for validity, and debunk the specious ones.  And that is a good thing.  We could not construct a neutral enyclopedia if we left our critical faculties at the door. --TS 02:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Debunking, on the contrary, is appropriate off Wikipedia, but on Wikipedia debunking means the editor has allowed his point of view to enter editing practices. Editors may present sources that are reliable, and verifiable sources written by debunkers, but debunking on Wikipedia itself is a non neutral action, violates NPOV and can indicates POV pushing.(olive (talk) 17:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC))


 * As I've said elsewhere, a trivial example of where Wikipedia correctly performs a debunking function is Searches for Noah's Ark, to wit: "Despite many rumours, claims of sightings and expeditions no scientific evidence of the ark has ever been found."


 * In a field where the popular belief is drawn from unreliable sources, it is necessary to make a statement that can only be interpreted as, and in fact has the obvious intent of, debunking the popular view. Doing so is not only compatible with the neutral point of view, it is required by it.  We have to state, in effect, that in our review of reliable sources according to our content policies, the popular claims are without basis.  --TS 09:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * For example, QuackWatch should not be used as a secondary source in our article about colon cleansing. When people come to Wikipedia, they are looking for a neutral presentation of the facts, not hype. Jehochman Talk 13:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree, with original statement. Since WP "does not" (as they say) engage in advocacy, the fringe claims can be fully presented -not "represented"- under this proposal.  Fringe views can be fully described in their own articles.  —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 23:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree, this is SOP. seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  13:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * The basically turns reliable sourcing on its ear. QuackWatch is a highly respected website by respected sources that meets our citeria for reliable sources far better than a lot of the fringe journals out there that use scientific-sounding names but are advocacy publications with no peer review. A standard tactic of fringe true believers has been to go around presenting "peer reviewed journals" that are anything but and to remove any mainstream sources that disagree with them. On top of that, looking for true scintific journals on colon cleansing means our sources are going to be both very hard to find (most fringe science topics are never covered in mainstream science journals because they are considered so wacky) and very diffuclt for a lay person to follow. Encyclopedias are written for people off the street by people off the street. QuackWatch *IS* the facts, from the scientific view. Just calling the whole site "hype" shows an extreme POV, and one that absolutely CANNOT be pushed onto this encyclopedia. User:Jehochman seems to be actively promoting fringe topics, whether it be intentional, out of ignorance of the effects of what he is saying, or out of trying to get User:ScienceApologist any way he can and not worrying abut the collateral damage to this project. 17:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC) (added by DreamGuy)
 * The issues with quackwatch, imo, are not so much the ordinary reliable source issues, but the polemical tone it's articles often take. So, while not an unusable source, for many articles it should not be the only or main one.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * All fine and good that that's your opinion, but it's clear User:Jehochman doesn't want it used at all and I think it's perfectly fine as a main source along with some others. ArbCom should not endorse a proposed finding in which the person who wrote it clearly states that he interprets it a specific way that goes against Wikipedia policy, ESPECIALLY when current rules of ArbCom say any admin may interpret ArbCom sanctions against any editor any way and take whateve steps they think are necessary and that those actions cannot be undone by any other admin or group of admins without explicit ArbCom approval. If Jehochman states his intent to go around removing a reliable source because he doesn't like it, it's only natural to assume that he will, and the way things are going there'd be nothing anyone else could do about it without dragging it back to ArbCom every. single. time. DreamGuy (talk) 17:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Barret he is a knowledgeable/notable source on health and nutrition issues, and in quackery. From his own bio:
 * a scientific advisor to the American Council on Science and Health, a CSICOP's Fellow, FDA Commissioner's Special Citation Award for Public Service in fighting nutrition quackery in 1984. Honorary membership in the American Dietetic Association in 1986. Two years teaching health education at The Pennsylvania State University. 2001 Distinguished Service to Health Education Award from the American Association for Health Education. (not a literal quote)
 * but we can't use him as source because "he's engaged in advocacy"? No. (not to mention that there are not defined criteria to determine advocacy, so all sources showing a fringe belief in a negative light will inevitabily be accused of advocacy). --Enric Naval (talk) 18:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


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


 * To agree with Jehochman's statement but also clarify. Debunkers may be acceptable sources but only if the sources are reliable and verifiable. Truly and fairly debunking a topic must mean that there is reliability in the research and outcomes, otherwise Wikipedia could be overwhelmed with opinionated, inaccurate information.(olive (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC))


 * Sources do not have to be neutral. If they look at the evidence and form an opinion, that's what scientists -- and experts in general -- do. That's what those academic journals you want treated as better than QuackWatch do alo. We can't count on any of them being factual and neutral... sciences don't just assume the results of one study are factual, they go with combined results of several studies. You get something like that better from a source like QuackWatch that tackles the whole topic based upon the results of multiple studies and on a broad range of related findings. The fact that QuackWatch has opinions doesn't make them any less of a source. DreamGuy (talk) 17:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * A good idea, as per above. And if there is a lack of reputable archaeologists bothering to refute, say, Erich von Däniken, the very fact that the peer-reviewed journals that do cover Däniken's work are Journals of Religion speaks volumes. Jayen  466  00:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Jehochman, you need to be more careful about how you word things. You have made some statements above that need to be tweaked, since they are already giving ammunition to fringe POV pushers who wish to see Quackwatch and Barrett banned as sources here. A simple study of the many authoritative sources that recommend Quackwatch and Barrett (we only use a few in their articles) will give an idea of what mainstream science, medicine, universities, professors, librarians, consumer organizations, and governmental bodies, think of them, and it's very positive. They are considered authoritative and can be used as good opinions. Yes, attribution is a good idea, but don't give the impression that they shouldn't be used. Some of your previous statements give that impression. BTW, when dealing with any controversial subject, "a neutral, factual assessment" is not a legitimate option. Presenting the "factual assessment" is by nature not a "neutral" act. We choose sources here, not because they are neutral, but because they exist and are often not neutral. They provide opinions about the real world as it exists, and if they are in V & RS, we use them.


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


 * I think it is up to a consensus at the article talk page or WP:RSN to determine what is a reliable source. I happen to have three doctors in my family and have seen what they read and what websites they visit.  I have an idea of what constitutes a reliable source for medical information. Jehochman Talk 04:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure we agree on that. What we're talking about here isn't MEDRS stuff or peer-reviewed scientific literature, but V & RS in general, and when it comes to opinions about healthfraud, quackery, and fringe medical subjects, Barrett and Quackwatch are considered among the most reliable there are. The team behind Quackwatch is pretty knowledgeable about such things. I think we can both agree that they wouldn't be the best sources of information for purely scientific articles, but when it comes to medical controversies involving fringe science and fraud, even on those articles, then they can be useful sources. It's a matter of differentiating when to use what. Each has their appointed place in the grand scheme of things here, and fringe POV pushers, quacks, and marketers of quack products and methods would love to use anything negative said here about Barrett and Quackwatch as weapons in their continued battle to eliminate any source that exposes them for what they are. They are very RS for certain things here, and when they aren't the best, Quackwatch still provides its sources, which are often excellent ones we can use. -- Fyslee (talk) 04:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia must not use promotional sources for statements of fact. Quackwatch is a promotional source, as the ArbCom confirmed before specifically. It can be used with very good attribution as an opinion. —— Martinphi    Ψ~Φ —— 06:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "Promotional" source? Please explain. -- Fyslee (talk) 06:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Come now, fyslee, it's obvious, and it was your own ArbCom . Unless you see a big difference between "partisan" and "promotional?" —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 07:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "Partisan 1. A fervent and even militant proponent of something. 2. An ardent and enthusiastic supporter of some person or activity 3." As an adjective, "1. Affiliated with one party or faction. 2. Devoted to a cause or party" IOW, promotional. —— Martinphi    Ψ~Φ —— 07:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind that wasn't a good finding and wasn't backed up with any evidence that it was true. It was careless wording adopted before any evidence had been presented and it was never shown to be the case that the sources used were unreliable. No evidence was brought forward to back up that finding! It just was written and lay there as a ticking bomb. Accusations are not evidence. Keep in mind that my opposer is the one who got banned, and I was "cautioned" to do exactly what I had been doing all along. You aren't the only one who has used that unfortunate wording to further an improper agenda. It was never proven that I used unreliable sources, and Quackwatch was never shown to be an unreliable source. Search the whole ArbCom and you will only find accusations, never proof. -- Fyslee (talk) 07:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Fyslee -- ArbCom was certainly wrong when they implicitly criticized you for using Quackwatch as a source, since many other editors had done so and there was no general agreement that it was unreliable. However, I certainly agree that Barrett is partisan, QW is biased, and it should be used with care.  That's a judgment call, something over which reasonable people can disagree, not a fact or falsehood.  There was plenty of discussion of QW and Barrett during that case.  The evidence page is blanked now.  However, if I remember correctly, some critical opinion was cited, e.g. here.  I think ArbCom probably did take this stuff into account in making their finding.


 * I've posted before about Barrett's use of disingenuous arguments and double standards, e.g., criticizing members of the IOM's panel on CAM for having professional affiliations involving CAM: this is a completely non-unique criticism; an IOM panel on radiology would have on board several radiologists receiving grant money to study radiology. At this point Barrett is likely to say, "oh, I don't criticize mainstream medicine; that's outside my scope".  Disingenuous by any definition.  Anyway, Fyslee, as you know, I defended you in that case and was unhappy you got slimed at all.  Still, I think ArbCom's characterization of Quackwatch was a defensible and fair judgement call. --Jim Butler (t) 10:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course Barrett and Quackwatch are biased. They have a SPOV bias, they defend science, they defend use of the scientific method, and they expose persons and methods who take the opposing POV. Thus their bias is a mainstream SPOV bias. Anyone who doesn't have well-chosen biases (which, BTW, aren't the same thing as prejudices) will likely not have opinions worth listening to. Barrett is conscious of his biases, as are most scientific skeptics. They have examined both sides of the issues and have found that the scientific position is the most defensible. In that they are similar to Wikipedia editors who follow our sourcing rules. In Barrett's and Quackwatch's case, they use their POV and knowledge to expose quackery and healthfraud, and thus are looked upon very favorably by governmental agencies and consumer groups who are also involved in exposing fraud.


 * As far as the ArbCom's dubious "finding", I have always been grateful for your friendship and honorable defense of my situation at the ArbCom. Thanks for that. I just wish that some ArbCom members would review that particular "finding" and expunge it from public view. Even though it is blanked, the history is there. They should go to that "finding", write comments admitting it was baseless, and then blank it again. It was one of many disgraceful things that happened under that ArbCom, most performed by my now-banned opponent, her dishonorable mentor, and her major defender. Unfortunately this particular blunder was made by the ArbCom itself. "Findings" should be written based upon actual findings, proven facts, and evidence, not upon false charges brought by my cowardly attacker (other username), who has been silent since that time. He wrote the agenda for the ArbCom case and some ArbCom member just copied it and followed it without checking to see if the charges were true. You can't write a "finding" before something is actually proven to have been "found"! Upon examination, that charge, among several others, was never proven to be true at all, both as regards any misuse of Quackwatch, or of Quackwatch being unreliable. Wrong on both counts, and yet it still stands there and gets trotted out by fringe POV pushers regularly. That finding was just plain wrong. -- Fyslee (talk) 15:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Lots of people are biased toward SPOV, but the issues I mentioned above about Barrett go well beyond that: double-standards, disingenuous arguments, and claims that we shouldn't even bother to study chiro or acu at all. These show a lack of partiality (he doesn't even want to gather or examine the fucking evidence!) and an overt anti-alt-med bias.  --Backin72 (n.b.) 07:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * A case has just been opened on this matter. -- Fyslee (talk) 15:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * While this proposal (as amended) is not particularly problematic, I think we need to keep in mind WP:PARITY. Some topics are so fringe that they are barely discussed at all in peer-reviewed mainstream journals. *** Crotalus ***  19:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you provide an example that we can debug? If something has such minimal notability that it does not appear in any sort of reliable source, perhaps we should just delete the article. Jehochman Talk 21:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories comes to mind - the existence of these theories is definitely notable and verifiable (Fox even once ran a primetime TV show discussing them), but no one is going to publish a peer-reviewed paper saying "yes, we really did go to the Moon," so we have to rely upon sources like Phil Plait's "Bad Astronomy" that are willing to get down in the dirt with the fringers and challenge them. *** Crotalus ***  22:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's an example I haven't personally dealt with, by the way. I have had two personal dealings with fringe topics: Satanic ritual abuse, and Asian fetish (or whatever it's called now). Both cases were brought to my attention via WP:FT/N and WP:RS/N. In the first case, I and a few others were able to run off the POV-pushers and get the article into shape, but I had a hard time finding reliable sources - after the hype of the 1980s, there really wasn't a lot published on the issue at all. I finally managed to find some good sources on JSTOR. Asian fetish was even worse, in my opinion it probably should have been deleted, almost no one notable ever discussed the concept at all, and it was a POV-pushing playground for one particularly problematic user. *** Crotalus ***  22:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Unsure, leaning towards support. It sounds good, but choosing reliable sources can be difficult to generalize about. Re moon landing:  it says such sources are preferred; but implicitly, if such sources cannot be found then other sources are used, so I don't see that as an objection to this statement. ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 02:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to agree that QuackWatch is a reliable source when used for a lot of fringe topics. I keep seeing editors wanting to get this source banned from the project.  Unfortunately the ones I see wanting it banned though are POV who insists that it's not reliable because it not peer reviewed.  Personally I find that most things there are copies from peer reviewed articles that are at times expanded upon.  I would hope that Wikipedia would not remove this as a reliable source.  I also think the past ARB decision should be rewritten to remove the doubts that some editors now hold about all of this. That arbitration was full of emotion and during the time there was a lot of evidence provided.  I especially remember two editors giving evidence.  One tried to show that Fyslee was abusing the use of QW and of the now banned user.  Another editor took days to gather difs and proved that editor was cherry picking quotes and comments and proved that all but like three comments were wrong.  It's hard to remember all of the details of the blanked discussions but it was a real eye opener for me since I was a new editor at the time.  So is QW a reliable source, heck yes it is.  If you go to the new request to change the wording you will see that Flo has stated that errors occured with the motion.  I really don't understand all of this arguing when QW is stated to be a good site by so many goverment agencies, as can be seen in the article.  Please consider this when making a motion. -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  12:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think Quackwatch can be used sparingly when we need to document the position taken by critics of "quackery". It is not a neutral source.  A medical journal is a better source in many situations. Jehochman Talk 16:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The case mentioned above has now resulted in a decision that exonerates me from any implied misdeed (the original decision), and the whole proceedings show that Quackwatch had never been forbidden as a source. It can be used, but just like any other source it should be used on a case by case basis following our usual rules. Just use common sense. -- Fyslee (talk) 15:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is non-judgmental; The facts speak for themselves
1) Wikipedia is non-judgmental. Wikipedia articles may report the opinions of reliable sources, but Wikipedia itself does not attempt to sway readers with rhetorical or emotional language.  The facts speak for themselves.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Our article on colon cleansing may report that the practice is unnecessary and potentially dangerous. However, Wikipedia itself should avoid using an emotional term like quackery to describe a subject.  (Reporting that X calls Y quackery may be appropriate sometimes.)  We should use precise, accurate terminology, and avoid rhetoric. Jehochman Talk 13:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree. —— Martinphi    Ψ~Φ —— 05:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree, this is SOP. seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  13:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Misrepresenting the actions of charlatans and quacks is not desirable. When there is no legitimate scientific debate on a matter we should say so.  We don't pretend that those who steal or lie are engaged in a debate with society about the nature of property and truth, so we shouldn't pretend that those who abuse scientific terms to gull their victims are engaged in legitimate debate about the nature of science or medicine. --TS 14:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I would agree with this in general. Wikipedia should not use a loaded term like "quackery" to describe something as Wikipedia's opinion. On the other hand, Wikipedia can certainly report that reliable sources call it quackery. In those two links you cited above, I think you were right to remove "Colon cleansing is considered quackery, with no basis in science or gastroenterology" (though that was a matter of degrees, the statement is accurate, but could use a slight tone tweak or citation on who exactly calls it quackery), but I think you went too far in removing both sources completely instead of using them to support a claim that, say, doctors warn people off of the practice. DreamGuy (talk) 17:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a judgment call. Feel free to add whatever you like.  Yes, tone is important.  We do not want our articles to have a polemic tone. Sometimes the battle between science and POV pushers results in both sides putting forward unacceptable content.  In that case it is necessary to remove the disruptive editors from the article, rather than to battle them.  I am willing to show anybody who will listen how to do that. We have to be careful that our reaction to POV pushing is not to reduce our standards to the level of those who would harm the encyclopedia. Jehochman Talk 21:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. This is the "impartial tone" in WP:NPOV; as such, it's a basic part of one of our core principles. ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 02:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * But this isn't really correct as written. Wikipedia goes where reliable sources go. If all or virtually all reliable sources are critical of a subject, then the Wikipedia article will seem largely "critical" or "judgemental" as well, assuming it respects WP:WEIGHT. A blanket statement that "Wikipedia is non-judgmental" is an open invitation to wikilawyering aimed at whitewashing or editorially dampening critical but reliable sources, in my opinion. MastCell Talk 07:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I see your point. I think we agree on what it ought to mean, but it's a matter of nuance and exactly how those particular words are interpreted.  Perhaps this proposal could be reworded to be more like WP:NPOV.  Would it help to change it to "Wikipedia is non-judgemental, but lets the facts speak for themselves"? ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 14:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I do like that wording better. I agree - I think we're on the same page, but I'm just being a stickler for wording to head off issues down the road. MastCell Talk 01:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have added The facts speak for themselves. Jehochman Talk 01:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree as per rewording added by Jehochman(olive (talk) 18:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC))

Disruptive editing
9. Disruptive editing techniques may not be used to prevent the formation of consensus. Administrators may use blocks to counteract the persistent use of disruptive editing techniques, including:
 * Argumentum ad nauseum,
 * Baiting or trolling,
 * Wikilawyering, filing frivolous complaints, or forum shopping,
 * Canvassing or block shopping.


 * Comment by arbitrators:
 * The sentiment is admirable, and the problem this proposes to address is real, but I'm not certain that formulation is helpful. This will be part of my proposals in revised form. &mdash; Coren (talk) 06:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * This is meant to counteract the tactics used by "polite POV pushers". I have placed such blocks and they have stood up to review.  Unfortunately, many administrators are shy about enforcing the disruptive editing guideline.  Perhaps the ArbCom can help by sending a message that they will support administrators who attempt to control disruptive editing. Jehochman Talk 17:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Lordy. You want to block people for "wikilawyering."  You'll be issuing a lot of blocks.  It would work both ways.  This would favor the fringe side of things, were any non-SPOV admins to take hold of it. —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 05:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Support per my comment here. Rather than allowing people to get away with behaviour until other editors are literally exhausted and then suddenly indef-blocking them, unacceptable behaviour should be defined, and clear warnings and escalating blocks used to control it, to minimize damage. ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 17:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this hands too much power to admins. Although it's a serious problem, polite POV pushing is a fairly localized problem so it's probably better to resolve it by naming the articles and providing enhanced powers.  This kind of approach has been applied with success in the past. --TS 06:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:DE has been on the books for quite some time. Some of us already exercise this power regularly. We need more encouragement from the Committee so that more administrators will feel comfortable doing so. Jehochman Talk 16:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Incivility
10. A pattern of incivility is disruptive and unacceptable, and may result in blocks if it rises to the level of harassment or egregious personal attacks. A single act of incivility can also cross the line if it is severe enough: for instance, extreme verbal abuse or profanity directed at another contributor, or a threat against another person can all result in blocks without consideration of a pattern. Wikipedia's Civility policy is not a weapon to use against other contributors. To insist that an editor be sanctioned for an isolated, minor offense, or to treat constructive criticism as an attack, is itself disruptive, and may result in warnings or even blocks if repeated.


 * Comment by arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Lifted from WP:CIVIL. I wrote part of this. Jehochman Talk 17:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. —— Martinphi    Ψ~Φ —— 05:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree, but enforcement is difficult. seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  13:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Support. Basic policy. ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 17:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Even though there are really several points here, they are all straghtforward.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thick skins
11. Administrators are expected to have thick skins. When an administrator blocks or sanctions a user, the user may react with incivility towards the administrator. In such cases, editors generally do not receive additional sanctions unless the incivility is extreme.


 * Comment by arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * It is important that we not cause disruption by needlessly escalating conflicts. I think that incidents involving User:ScienceApologist have also escalated because SA tends to react with hostility towards any administrator who attempts to control their use of disruption or incivility.
 * No, I guess you've never been a parent, eh? —— Martinphi    Ψ~Φ —— 05:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There can be exceptions. One time an editor I warned for canvassing responded by posting a picture of The finger on my talk page, and I blocked them as a disruption-only account. User:Newyorkbrad may remember the incident. Jehochman Talk 17:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree, but with exceptions. This is difficult to enforce. seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  13:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Point taken. (Struck 13:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)) ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 17:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that it's a good idea to enshrine in an ArbCom finding the notion that users who have earned a sanction for their poor conduct automatically get a free pass to be obnoxious. Why would we tolerate, condone, and encourage temper tantrums on Wikipedia which we would never put up with in a real-world volunteer group?  (See also Penny Arcade's GIFT; not safe for uptight workplaces.)  I see far too much opportunity for wikilawyering and abuse in this principle.  Both admins and the recipients of sanctions ought to recognize that these situations are stressful and both parties should conduct themselves accordingly.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was thinking of saying something along those lines. Let's not hand out free passes to abuse people!  Admins take too much abuse already.  I like what you said, "both parties should conduct themselves accordingly."  How about "Wikipedia editors are expected to have thick skins.  If blocked from editing for a good or bad reason, they are expected to respond in a professional manner."  I don't think it's fair to assume that admins necessarily have any thicker skin than anybody else.  We need our admins.  Perhaps if an editor habitually gets abusive when blocked, it would be reasonable to escalate the length of their blocks at a higher rate, to minimize the total amount of abuse. ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 19:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose. We have another larger problem: aggressive users with a strong support base who retaliate and intimidate admins who enforce sanctions. If admins become fearful of enforcing correct sanctions, Wikpedia will become a lawless place where thugs with a strong support base are given a free rein. MaxPont (talk) 07:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Although it may be useful for admins to have thick skins, sensitivity in dealing with and understanding people may also be a useful trait.Possibly one of the best admins I've seen in action is Dreadstar, and I always find he is highly sensitive to the people he deals with and I think is well liked and respected because he goes out of his way it seems to understand and treat people in regards to that understanding.My point is that rather than define how one takes abuse lets just support the removal of the abuser until the abuser can control the behaviour. We can't dictate personality, here seems to me.(olive (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC))


 * Comment Wording needs work. "the user may react with incivility" is ambiguous: it can be read "the user has permission to react with incivility".  The point being made is surely an acknowledgement of an unfortunate empirical reality, not a subtle rationalization for poor behavior.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The last sentence seems inaccurate. Additional sanctions regularly applied in reaction to incivility in such cases include protecting the user's talk page until the block expires. Some unblock requests are also declined on the grounds that the request itself contains personal attacks.  I thought there was a principle that administrators don't usually block in response to attacks against themselves, but I can't find that in the blocking policy; however, administrators should not allow users to use attacks to disqualify the administrator from handling a situation; therefore administrators sometimes need to block someone even though the person has just attacked them.
 * Even if the wording is changed so it doesn't say "may", just stating that additional sanctions are not applied would signal users that they can get away with such behaviour and would therefore not be a wise thing to proclaim.
 * I agree with Littleolive oil: we can't dictate personality. Also, it may be beneficial to have some admins who have traits such as sensitivity which may not usually go along with having a thick skin. ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 13:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * It's about time someone sought to curb the slanderous accusations of the debunkers. When I say "debunker," I am talking about a well defined set of behavior.  When a person says "kook" "idiot" contrasts others with "reality based editors," or calls others "anti science," they are not talking about behavior, but assumed mental attitude.  Further, any NPOV editor who comes and tries to curb debunking will have such epithets flung at him. —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 23:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I oppose the labeling of any editors "pro-science" and "anti-science" for the purpose of this RFAR and elsewhere. Input should be based upon merit and the validity of sources and text, not on their particular viewpoint overall. seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  13:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Maybe this isn't the best way to articulate this, but I am really tired of anyone who disagrees with the "scientific consensus" on a particular issue being dismissed as "anti-science". Nobody is anti-science any more than a politician voting against a particular Medicare bill wants senior citizens beaten up and left for dead on the streets.  If this term would slip from the collective vocabulary of the "pro-science" (or whatever) editors, the probability of harmonious editing would increase by 21.3%.  (That percentage is not based on a scientific study.  Yes, this sentence is intended to be ironic.) --B (talk) 19:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * But it has a decimal place, which makes it 37.7% more scientific. :) Yes, I think this would be a good general idea, if not necessarily an ArbCom finding. MastCell Talk 20:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * To really be scientific, it needs some big words - "based on chi-square distribution analysis of the expected value and variance, with special emphasis on umbral calculus, of a stratified random sample gathered last Thursday, we infer a 37.7% increase." --B (talk) 20:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, all it takes is a p-value to fool the masses. MastCell Talk 20:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Joking aside (I loved the gobbledeegook), I have modified my evidence in view of B's proposal, with which I agree (i.e. it's not a good idea to say that other editors appear to be against science). Mathsci (talk) 20:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support, entirely. Sceptre (talk) 23:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "Anti-science" is an epithet, a slander, an insult. Using this term to describe editors is a violation of WP:NPA. Dlabtot (talk) 02:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with this because it's so obviously untrue. We have banned people in the past for pushing extreme anti-science viewpoints.  The history of the evolution article shows persistent vandalism by anti-science editors who replace it with a quote from Genesis.  My evidence section shows a history of arbitration cases in which scientific evidence has been misrepresented and manipulated, primarily by those with fringe viewpoints and, it must be said, often little science education.  --TS 21:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. It may be true and acceptable to say "This editor deletes material which I consider to be scientific", but it's far too easy to call someone "anti-science" because, using the scientific method, they arrived at a different conclusion than oneself, or because the person interprets the NPOV policy as calling for mention of a certain POV in an article, regardless of whether the person actually agrees with that POV. One could simply call everyone who disagrees with oneself "anti-science". Does anyone call themself "anti-science"? ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 02:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Strongest Possible Oppose: Creationism, for instance, is an explicitly anti-science movement: Proponents often attack basic qualities of the scientific method, such as changing one's mind when confronted with evidence, as proof that the "unchanging" Bible is a better source (For instance, Answers In Genesis). Also, alternative medicine POV-pushers and advocates often say that science is merely one way of knowing, and that other, unspecified ways of knowing should be given equal weight to the ones that actually collect evidence (e.g. intuition or insight, or traditional knowledge). This is explicitly anti-science. I'm sure the term has been used to readily, but I see no point in claiming that no editor does not respect science, when my experience shows this is clearly not the case. I do not think that it is either useful or appropriate for the Arbcom, who, by and large, have no or little experience with such articles (though with notable exceptions, of course) to say that no editor holds views that some clearly do. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 06:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Even if I accepted your contention that creationism is an anti-science movement (I maintain that it is not falsifiable and therefore is science-neutral), calling a person "anti-science" is a pejorative. Simply disagreeing with the scientific consensus on a single issue doesn't make someone anti-science.  Personally, I believe in the Biblical six-day creation (not so-called "young-earth" creation - Adam and Eve could have been chilling out in the garden for kazillions of years while everything else was going on in the world), but I agree with the so-called "pro-science" editors on basically every other science issue (quackery, global warming, etc).  Yet you would call me "anti-science". --B (talk) 07:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As a biology major, I have edited many evolution and science-related articles. The creationists I've dealt with, and which I am refering to implicitly - if not explicitly, for which I apologise - are the groups led by people such as Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, and similar, who explicitly attack science in their online material. It is possible to believe in creationism without being anti-science, but I believe it's fair to say that the vast majority of the leadership of the movement and most of its visible followers on Wikipedia primarily seek to attack well-established scientific theories, mainly evolution, and to use said articles to denigrate these theories in order to (in their view) increase the prestige of their creationist views. It's so bad at evolution that it's full-protected and has an editable copy that admins move content over from. But this was not my point: Your proposed finding is that "Few, if any editors are anti-science": Clearly, the actions of many editors demonstrate anti-sciene views, even if we merely limited it to just the prominent vandal editors, such as Kdbuffalo (et al sockpuppets) and the Genesis vandal, etc. Denying there is a problem is not helpful, even if you yourself hold views that many who are part of the problem hold, even though you yourself are not part of the problem. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 07:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * To clarify a bit more: To hold a religious belief is not anti-science; however, if you are lying and misrepresenting the views of others in order to attack those on the other side - as most prominent creationist advocates do, and that other side is biology, then, yes, you are anti-science. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 17:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If we cannot agree that modern forms of creationism (including old earth varieties) are good examples of the anti-science viewpoint, I think this is part of the problem. There is science on one hand, and there is believing some crap because it's written in an old book on the other. --TS 19:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A little more care is required here. Freeman Dyson is an example of an individual who has worn two hats, that of theoretical physicist and that of theologian. The two disciplines were kept separate. Another example, probably not quite as distinguished, is John Polkinghorne. Mathsci (talk) 20:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, there are distinctive disciplines involved. There is a considerable overlap, though, and a lot of the history of science has been the steady retreat of theological models in the face of scientific discovery.   In Christianity, the problem was recognised quite early on and we still often remember Augustine of Hippo's work on Genesis in which he castigates those who make their religion look stupid because of their insistence on using the bible as an authority on matters of the real world. --TS 21:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We should not label our opponents for rhetorical reasons but if it is a correct description we should use it. MaxPont (talk) 07:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As a quick aside: If the finding was "Calling individuals anti-science, however accurate, is rarely helpful", then that would be quite another matter - I think we could all agree that that's not going to help the situation much. But the finding seeks to declare the description universally inaccurate. That's a different issue. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 23:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * oppose per SH. Few will *call* themselves anti-science, because of science's prestige; but editing in an anti-science manner is all too common William M. Connolley (talk) 20:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't know how many anti-science editors there may be but, in my estimation, more than a few have commented in some individual threads (and in some individual arbitration cases too). Cardamon (talk) 20:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Why is there any effort at all to pigeonhole people/editors. We don't have the right or information to do so. Just deal with the editor in an open neutral way. Anything else begins to smell like name calling.(olive (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC))
 * For what it's worth, I don't think that "anti-science editor" is very good terminology. It would be better to describe the behaviors of an individual editor by saying, for example "has pushed fringe science or pseudoscience POVs in multiple subject areas", or "has tried to rewrite wp:Fringe and wp:NOR to make them more fringe friendly". Cardamon (talk) 07:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose, but not necessarily on truth-value grounds The "if any" phrase, while allowing the statement to be true over a wider range of scenarios, is nonetheless weaselly because it itself only addresses the absurdly implausible case that no editors are anti-science (itself an ambiguous phrase with varied connotations depending on context).  Even if struck, the resulting statement is not useful and may be a red herring, as it is the editing, not the editors, at a subset of articles/talkpages that is the problem.  Affirming this may not be wrong, but it would be misdirected. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose on truth-value grounds.... There seem to be many editors who are anti-science on specific pseudo-scientific topics.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 02:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * It takes some fortitude, but I have had good luck using WP:AE to clear out such accounts from certain 9/11 articles, and I was able to use WP:RFAR to remove such an account from Cold fusion. There is no way to legislate common sense and backbone.  We need to create a culture that rewards editors willing to do difficult work, even when such work causes "drama".  Unfortunately, we have a fair number of sheeple who bleat "no drama, no drama". Jehochman Talk 20:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This is administrative enforcement of content, which even the Arbitration Committee does not do. Such behavior is grounds for desysoping. I agree that one should be strict -much stricter- about sources.  Unfortunately we have a fair number of Dirty Harrys who roar about "defending the wiki" by any means, "Well, do ya, punk?" This is just a civil means for an admin run the wiki ScienceApologist's way. —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 23:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Not really; if a specific editor habitually pushes low-quality sources, ignores feedback, and refuses to heed WP:WEIGHT, then it's a behavioral issue of the sort that any admin is theoretically empowered to deal with. Blocks are intended to protect the encyclopedia from damage, and I would submit that this sort of behavior is at least as damaging, if not more so, then name-calling and silly GEORGE BUSH IS TEH GHEY vandalism. MastCell Talk 23:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "Low quality sources" may be a fringe, but peer-reviewed journal put up against Quackwatch. Literally.  People try to get editors banned for trying to push the peer reviewed journal while at the same time arguing that Quackwatch is a good source.  And some admins happen to agree.... Thus I don't think admins should be enforcing content.  Consensus can do that. Consensus is the mechanism WP relies upon for content enforcement.  Now, if an editor is going against a clear consensus, that is different.  The editor must form a new consensus, or they are being disruptive.  The admin can use tools relative to disruption.  But not relative to sources. —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 00:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I purposely did not specify what I meant by "low-quality sources". Depending on the context, Quackwatch may be a low-quality source. Some "peer-reviewed journals" may be low-quality sources. So perhaps we are in agreement. MastCell Talk 05:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you're asking too much if you expect any nuance around here. Arguing that different sources are reliable or unreliable for different statements and articles has gotten me about nowhere.  I still say that no matter what the source, it's consensus that enforces content, and the admin can only intervene if consensus is disruptively violated- IOW, a behavioral issue, not a content issue. —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 06:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Tentatively agree, but not to an indefinite block right off the bat. seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  13:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Each case should be decided on the merits. More enforcement would be useful.  ArbCom saying that they won't (verb) an admin who attempts to enforce policy would be helpful. See Hoffman for an example of such a (verb)ing. (I have a verb in mind, but it isn't polite.)Jehochman Talk 16:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * There should be much stricter enforcement of all policies. Disruptive editing - of whatever form - should be swiftly dealt with, especially through the use of topic bans. It's usually not really very hard when examining a dispute to discover the primary movers of that dispute.  Ban those not working towards consensus from the area of dispute and let them edit articles about which they are less passionate. No one is indispensable. Dlabtot (talk) 02:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Something like the policy we adopted in biographies of living persons, which has emboldened people to stub down problem articles and start again, would be great for science. We should also discourage the creation of articles on fringe subjects that function only as POV forks of science articles.   --TS 21:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Stricter enforcement of policies is fine, but content policies are enforced by all editors, not specifically by admins. I agree with Martinphi:  people can be blocked for going against consensus, but admins should not take decisions about which content is better into their own hands by blocking for violation of content policy directly (except obvious vandalism etc.) ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 02:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose for procedural reasons: In the current case, editors are attacking Cirt for source usage that they never discussed with him or anyone else prior to this case opening; a violation of basic five pillars consensus building. In such an environment, this finding is inappropriate. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 07:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * @Shoemaker's Holiday: It doesn't seem particularly helpful to confuse two different but concurrent ArbCom cases, one on fringe science and one on scientology. The issues are completely different. Mathsci (talk) 07:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I apologise, I was looking over the current Arbcom cases earlier, and got confused. These things all start to look alike after a while. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 07:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support ... I think. This one really requires trust in the administrators' judgment, general transparency, and second chances after explanation. My experience with college students is that it genuinely does not occur to many of them that a direct quote can be used to misrepresent a source or that "Dr." and "peer-review" do not grant an automatic pipeline to the truth. People who are capable of reform after having a silly mistake pointed out should be encouraged to continue editing. There usually seems to be a fair bit of clue wandering around AN/I, so I feel comfortable that mistakes can be rectified. Such blocks and topic bans should be logged at this case if the motion passes, if I understand the arbitration conventions correctly. - Eldereft (cont.) 20:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support in spirit with caveats. The phrase "much stricter", while an understandable reaction to a vexing problem, is vague; striking "much" would improve the clarity and enforcability of this statement.  Further, using a one-size-fits-all indefinite block seems overly general.  A clarification to say "having their editing restricted" or some other allowance for the specifics might improve this statement.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * We have WP:RSN. Let's not create another layer of bureaucracy. Jehochman Talk 20:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with the proposal, per MBisanz below: I also liked it then. —— Martinphi    Ψ~Φ —— 23:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I liked this idea at Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy/Proposed_decision and I still think it could work if done correctly.  MBisanz  talk 22:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this might be a good idea. WP:RS/N is too often inconclusive. *** Crotalus ***  19:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose While RS/N is imperfect, self-selecting by area seems a better solution to source review than guaranteeing that most editors examining a source will have primary interests elsewhere. - Eldereft (cont.) 20:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's not have another bureaucratic process, please. Stifle (talk) 16:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Death threats
1) Death threats are unacceptable. Even if a threat is couched in humourous or ambiguous terms, the recipient may still feel threatened, and even if a death threat is not a credible threat of actual death, it may still be intimidating and may be seen as indicating a degree of anger or determination that might later be expressed in aggressive on-wiki behaviour.  It would be counterproductive to allow users to use death threats as a means of influencing or controlling others' on-wiki behaviour.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Agree. Sarcasm or not, Wikipedia takes all death threats seriously. As part of SOP, nearly all death threats reported to AN/ANI have been investigated, and the appropriate authorities notified. seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  13:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree. Don't try this at an airport or you'll get arrested. Plenty of topics are available for joking. This is not one of them. Jehochman Talk 16:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 13:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you may have missed an essential element here - death threats such as that made by SA are not so much an attempt to threaten or coerce as they are an attempt to dehumanize the target. It's much easier to engage in acts of violence (verbal violence in this case) if you first strip away the humanity of the intended victim. Despotism 101. Ronnotel (talk) 13:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That comment is a major violation of WP:AGF as you specified that SA's alleged threats qualified and could only be explained in this way. "Verbal violence"? "Despotism 101"? Can you try to be a little less histrionic here, please, as these sort of wild claims seem more likely to portray someone you don't like as someone who deserves whatever he gets and whose good actions can be completely ignored than the comments you are complaining about. "It's OK to do whatever we want to SA, because he's just a despot dehumanizing people..." Come on, get serious here. DreamGuy (talk) 16:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * One editor has made the point that this may have been misplaced sarcasm. No doubt the committee will look to see if it's part of a pattern. --TS 21:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll go with "misplaced sarcasm". SA makes comments that are too sarcastic, which is bad, and then (some) people take them as serious statements, which is also bad. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think SA has a good sense of humour. He also has a larger pattern of incivilities. Death threats even under duress are not civil, and not funny probably to some who are threatened. Civility isn't about ourselves its about the "other guy", and the "other guy" may have been ignored in this instance. Any other editor would have been blocked faster than... well really fast(olive (talk) 18:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC))

User talk pages
2) Users do not own their user talk pages. While users sometimes request that others refrain from editing their talk page, and users often choose to comply with such requests, there is no requirement to do so. Since user talk pages are used for notifying users of breaches of policy and of steps in dispute resolution, user talk page messages are often productive and acceptable even when they may be unwelcome to the recipient.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Agree. FWIW, ScienceApologist once said that he doesn't archive his pages because it makes it harder for people to look for evidence.  But don't ask for a diff on that, as it would be very hard to find since he doesn't use edit summaries much and he doesn't archive his talk page. —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 02:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * SOP. seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  13:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Relevant to ScienceApologist's use of death threats. ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 13:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Strongly disagree because of experience dealing with people who felt they could leave all sorts of bad faith notices, vandalism and outright harassment on a talk page and keep putting them back if they were removed. The user talk page (indeed all talk pages) is supposed to be about helping to improve the encyclopedia. All too often that's not at all what the comments become. Initial messages are usually fine, but many times, especially when disputes are flying, the talk page devolves into a schoolyard shouting match that has no potential for improving the editing environment for anyone. Frankly, every time I see the little orange message notice I cringe because I wonder if it's one of my old harassers back to make some taunts... and sometimes it is. That little message indicator has become one of the most stressful things I encoutner on this site. I think people should be able to control their talk pages in general... I would make an exception for admins who are neutral and not already engaged in a preexisting dispute for regular Wikipedia business (and if someone needs to contact the editor they had a dipsute with they ought to be able to find a neutral admin to place the notice there -- that alone usually brings the tone of the message down so it's not so accusatory and threatening), but otherwise, functionally anyway, there's no practical necessity that anyone post to a user talk page. If someone has a suggestion about a particular article, those comments should be directed to the article talk page instead. And so forth and so on. If someone tells you to stay off their talk page and you deliberately go back, you are escalating the problem instead of making a good faith effort to resolve the dispute. DreamGuy (talk) 16:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry about your negative experiences with talk page messages and hope that ways are found to control such annoying messages. The point here is that incivility and death threats are not an appropriate way to create a new policy or to establish control over territory. There are appropriate ways of doing that; but at the moment there is no policy requiring staying completely off someone's talk page when asked, and I think it would be inappropriate to use this forum to create such a policy.  I suggest WT:Talk page guidelines. This certainly does not mean that it's OK to post annoying messages or that posting to the talk page of someone who has (civilly, one hopes) requested that one not post there is the same thing as posting to any other talk page, so I don't understand the reason for your strong disagreement; maybe you've read more into my statement than I meant?  Perhaps it needs to be modified: "no absolute requirement" or "while it's civil to comply, it is not required" or something. ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 01:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support with caveats about what has been left unstated. These three sentences simply restate respective guidelines.  The last sentence's "often" is an important qualifier, implicitly reiterating that the pages are not owned by the user, but also allowing for the possibility that even talk messages with nominally productive content can be in certain circumstances disruptive, in particular after repeated blankings of similar messages, or dissimilar messages but from the same editor, etc. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Gray areas
There are gray areas in policies and guidelines about behaviour, where there is not a full consensus or where it is not clear whether there is a consensus. In such cases, it may be wise for users to follow the recommended behaviour, but those wishing to influence others to comply may find a lack of enforcement measures. They should not resort to the use of incivility as an enforcement measure to fill in a perceived lack of such measures. ''Sometimes policies and guidelines will recommend, but not mandate, a behaviour. Users shouldn't resort to incivility to force other users to comply with the recommendations.''(Similar to Enric Naval's proposed wording. 01:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC))


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Agree. —— Martinphi    Ψ~Φ —— 04:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. I'm thinking here of ScienceApologist's method of requesting that users stay off SA's talk page. ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 12:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * TL;DR, I propose "Sometimes policies and guidelines will recommend a behaviour, but they will not mandate it. Users shouldn't resort to incivility to force other users to comply with the recommendations if they choose not to follow them." --Enric Naval (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I changed it. Same idea, fewer words. ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 01:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Enforcement of content policies
It often happens that it seems clear and obvious to an editor that a certain change needs to be made in an article to make it comply with the content policies; however, the editor should respect the fact that others might not agree. Available methods to enforce content policies include attempting to persuade others through civil discussion; attempting to develop a new version that all parties find acceptable; and appealing to a broader community discussion through WP:3O, WP:RfC (article content), various noticeboards and wikiprojects, etc. If the content issue really is clear and obvious to the vast majority of members of the community, it will likely be fairly easy to enforce the policy in these ways. In any case, editwarring is discouraged, and incivility is not to be used as an enforcement measure.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Agree. Fringe articles suffer from such a negative environment that it is difficult and very often impossible to draw in outside editors. —— Martinphi    Ψ~Φ —— 04:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 12:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Use of death threats to intimidate
1) ScienceApologist has used death threats in an attempt to influence certain users not to post to SA's talk page. Although the death threats were presented in the form of jokes, the aggressive use of obscenity in the same edit makes it clear that they were not friendly, good-natured jokes.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * As noted above, while this threat may not have been serious, we have blocked and dealt with similar threats that have been more laughable in the past. As for a DIFF of the said statement in question, here is a link. seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  18:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, yeah. Seriously, this is the least of his sins. —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 04:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 13:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * With findings like this, often the Committee links to the relevant diffs/evidence sections in the form "(see evidence)", which may be a handy thing to add for these. Daniel (talk) 03:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This completely misses the point: they were not actual death threats. No sane people will seriously believe that he was actually threatening their lives in any way or form. Not when the section title is "I'm assembling my armies of the night", and not when you read to the end and see that he intends to kill anti-fluoridation editors with Water fluoridation. Not when the next paragraph starts with "Seriously". Of course, if you only read certains part of the message then it does look like a death threat.


 * btw, diff for the "death threat" --Enric Naval (talk) 07:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. as a target of the death threat. MaxPont (talk) 07:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Concur with this. Serious or not, they create unnecessary drama at best. Stifle (talk) 16:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that Seriously, all, get the FUCK OFF MY TALKPAGE. was the bit intended to make people not post to his talk page. The "joke death threats" were regrettable and in my opinion should be blockable, however. Unfortunately we appear to have a policy that downplays incivility on users own talk pages; if we do have such a policy (I dislike it), then I don't think we should effectively try to get round it by blocking for such "death threats" William M. Connolley (talk) 20:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sympathetic oppose the first sentence. I would find the second sentence true if the "threats" were qualified as "so-called" or the phrase itself quoted.  The message in question is quite clearly tasteless and (IMO) blockable sarcasm, but to construe it as a threat is crying wolf.  This is in no way an endorsement of the message in question, merely a comment about the proposed finding. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Calling this (unacceptable) outburst "death threats" strains credulity. As with Baccyak4H, qualification would be necessary to accept the first sentence. I do not consider SA's posts in question to be acceptable, but overstating the situation here helps nobody. Another important point: anyone should be able to "influence certain users not to post to [his or her] talk page"...that is, good-faith requests to be left alone should be respected. &mdash; Scientizzle 01:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose The reason I oppose this because there were many editors watching his talk page including administrators and at least one arbitrator. SA was silent for a long time yet the people watching him being attacked, accused and so forth did nothing to stop the disruptions going on at his talk page until he blew his top.  Was he right to do this, no, but everyone of the editors that posted to his page knew he was going to blow a gasket.  Also, to take his parady as a serious threat, well I'm sorry that's hard to believe.  Plus, wouldn't this whole proposal being said here be considered stale?  Anyways this is my opinion on the matter and I watched most of it as it was going on.  I didn't say anything because I expected anytime one of the administrators or the arb would step in and stop it all.  I am sorry now that I didn't tell everyone to move along.  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  19:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

ScienceApologist has been warned about incivility
2) ScienceApologist has been previously warned about incivility and has undergone a one-year civility parole.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Surely you jest. —— Martinphi    Ψ~Φ —— 02:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 13:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support no Martin I'm serious, but don't call me Shirley. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree. -- Crohnie Gal Talk  19:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Effect of intimidation
3) The users against whom the death threats were directed have not edited ScienceApologist's talk page after the threats were issued.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 13:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This should not be titled Effect of intimidation but Users finally doing what good faith should have made them do in the first place after they were told it wasn't helping -- So they don't post to the user talk page... is that some great loss to them? (By the way, the clerks have said that this process is supposed to be about fringe science articles in general and less about individual editors. You seem to be exclusively targeting SA here, which isn't particularly helpful and only helps prove the case that these conflicts are out of control and have become witch hunts instead of good faith efforts to resolve disputes.) DreamGuy (talk) 16:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Erm, where was this said by a clerk? I am the case clerk, and have said nothing of the sort. Daniel (talk) 03:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * not feel'n this one. I more agree with DreamGuy's comments.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought that if I tried to start a separate case about ScienceApologist's behaviour, that likely I would be told that it was supposed to be handled under this case, so I decided not to do that. One way or another, these issues need to be addressed.  I believe the arbitrators usually look at the behaviour of all participants in cases.  I don't think having some items about ScienceApologist's behaviour will prevent discussions in other sections from occurring about the other issues. There are ways of getting users to do what they're supposed to do or be blocked; incivility and death threats are not part of WP:DR. ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 01:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Some things that should be mentioned here is that the editors shouldn't have been posting things on SA's talk page to begin with. It should have been stopped immediately and it wasn't. Accusations of socking with lists of 'possible socks' don't go on a users talk page yet it did.  The editor did finally say he shouldn't have posted there but it was too late by then.  SA was on a break if I remember correctly, yet when he looked at his page there were a whole bunch of bad faith accusations there.  I think anyone would have gotten angry.  Maybe everyone should think about treating everyone with more respect.  I personally don't see this as a one editor problem after watching that fiasco go on unabated.  And calling what SA did a real death threat, lets be real here.  I can't believe anyone took it seriously as a threat to harm.  It was used more to enable a ban that was refused previously.  Please lets give this a rest already.  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  12:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That those users against whom this outburst was directed have not posted on SA's talk page in a month's time does not necessarily support the thesis that they have been "intimidated" (neither would posts to SA's talk page disprove any purported intimidation). DreamGuy's comment appears right-on. &mdash; Scientizzle 01:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

@ Daniel; You said "Erm, where was this said by a clerk? I am the case clerk, and have said nothing of the sort." It was said here by Coren I hope this helps. -- Crohnie Gal Talk  19:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Difficulty in effectively retracting threats
4) It would be difficult or impossible to restore a feeling of freedom to edit ScienceApologist's talk page to the level that existed before the death threats.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * How about "For many editors, it would be difficult or impossible to restore a feeling of freedom to edit ScienceApologist's talk page to the level that existed before he told them to FUCK OFF and BANNED them from it."? —— Martinphi    Ψ~Φ —— 03:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 13:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * To be absolutely fair, the page prior to Science apologist's offending comments was not in a desirable state. --TS 21:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There was heavy baiting going on, and SA cracked under the pressure. This is a case where both sides are wrong: the baiters and the editor who made mock death threats in response. Jehochman Talk 17:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Jehochman on this one. Everyone was behaving poorly for this fiasco.  I'm sorry but again I want to ask, isn't this case supposed to be about things in general to help make it tolerable to edit fringe theories and not about any specific editor?  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  19:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Hostile editing environment
5) With incivility, death threats and a stated intention to "attack" other users, (17:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)) ScienceApologist has created a hostile editing environment.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 13:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * SA is certainly not the only one to create a hostile editing environment, so should not be singled out in a proposed finding. Sceptre on these pages has called all "vocal science editors" to be people who call anyone who disagree with them trolls. We have someone above calling SA a dehumanizing despot. People leaving countless accusations and threats of bans and rehashing of old disputes that were already taken care of by ArbCom is also a hostile editing environment. Solving the problem can't happen until people realize and acknowledge the full nature of the problem instead of scapegoating a single participant. DreamGuy (talk) 16:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That the behavior continues despite repeated sanctions and warnings is not really a mark in the editor's favor. 'Rehashing old disputes' is an odd way to characterize the presentation of evidence that an editor has a long history of disruption and unwillingness or inability to learn to work within WP policy. If ArbCom has sanctioned an editor and the sanctions were ineffective, it would be inaccurate to describe the problem as having been 'taken care of'. I agree, however that no editor should be 'singled out' - policies should be applied consistently to all editors. Dlabtot (talk) 02:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It fails to take into account that it was POV pushing what poisoned the talk pages on the first place, and it's stubborn POV resistance to neutralize the articles what keeps the huge fights up (this not limited to fringe science articles, it's general for all articles with strong POVs). SA's behaviour is not stellar, but, as Dreamguy points out, he is not alone on that, and people are rehashing all SA's actuations without looking at their opponent's behaviour at that time. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Striking out "and a stated intention to "attack" other users". I had based this on the quote "I promise to continue to attack ...", which as Bishonen points out was taken out of context: the sentence did not begin with "I promise", but with an if-clause; to quote it without the if-clause changes the meaning of the sentence.  I apologize, ScienceApologist, for getting this wrong. ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 17:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn, per Bishonen. ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 01:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

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

ScienceApologist is banned from editing Wikipedia
1) ScienceApologist is indefinitely banned from editing Wikipedia.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Oppose. As long as he is involved in mentorship, there is hope for improvement.  If mentorship fails, then alternatives can be considered. Jehochman Talk 23:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. I regret not having had the opportunity to engage in debate discussion and collaboration(03:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)) with ScienceApologist on any of a number of interesting topics. ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 13:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC) (17:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC))
 * Well, your agenda is certainly clear here, especially with the uncivil tone of the comment attached. DreamGuy (talk) 16:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you perceive my agenda to be; I realize there may be alternative remedies even if others agree with my above proposed findings. My attached comment, beginning "I regret", is intended to be civil, expresses my actual sentiment, and was included only because I believed it was more civil than saying nothing; could you suggest how I could refactor it, and/or explain why you perceive it as uncivil?  Do you think it would be better for me to strike it out? ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 01:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * not seeing how this flows from the findings above. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is going to happen. The acceptance votes by ArbCom made it clear that the purpose of this arbitration was to come up with appropriate, forward-looking solutions for fringe science topics in general (hence the case title), not to single out one particular editor. *** Crotalus ***  19:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support, although I favor a temporary ban of one year. If he is not banned, even temporarily, I'd like the ArbComm to explain more clearly why I was banned and not him. See double standard. Pcarbonn (talk) 19:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Historically, the Committee has considered bans of one year to be the maximum it can issue, and has rarely (if ever) issued bans longer than 12 months, although it has occasionally confirmed community-based indefinite bans. Just a casual observation, Daniel (talk) 03:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn, per Jehochman, Bishonen and Daniel, with apologies to ScienceApologist. ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 17:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The ArbCom is not even closed and the mentor has problems with ScienceApologist . What will happen when the Arbcom is closed and (if) ScienceAplogist is let off the hook? IMO, it is naive to believe that mentorship will work. A separate request to ban ScienceApologsit can be found below[[[User:MaxPont|MaxPont]] (talk) 09:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Due weight is based on the preponderence of opinion in published, reliable sources
1) To determine proper weight, we look at the preponderence of opinion in published, reliable sources on the subject, not at the preponderence of the view among "most scientists" or in news articles. If available, secondary scholarly reviews of the topic, as published in the most reliable sources available, should be used to determine such preponderence of opinion.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Agree. News articles can sometimes be good sources, but are not the best especially for scientific subjects. —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 21:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed to clarify "mainstream". Statements of what "most scientists" think are not relevant in determining proper weight.  Most scientists cannot be a reliable source on every subject.  News articles are considered less reliable than scholarly sources for scientific subjects.  See also the next principle.Pcarbonn (talk) 10:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a bit more complex than that. For instance the Holy See is a good, authoritative source for official Roman Catholic opinion--as reliable as you like on that subject--but I would not expect their opinion to be taken into account, for instance, on the efficacy of condom use. --TS 21:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Content issue; beyond the scope of ArbCom.
 * Necropsy findings: Judging by the degree of lividity and rigor mortis, I'd estimate that this horse has been dead for at least 2 weeks, though many of its traumatic injuries were acquired post-mortem. MastCell Talk 07:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Isn't it funny that those who pretend to defend good science are the ones who reject the first principle of scholarly study in favor of tabloid sources ?Pcarbonn (talk) 09:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "Most scientists' is weasel wording. Anyone polled all of the scientists in the world and then found most of them agree or disagree on something ... nope... weasel.(olive (talk) 18:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC))


 * Oppose The views of most scientists (or few, or all, or anyone else) can be reliable, as can news articles. (But of course, in neither case are they required.) It is the sum totality of all sources, weighted by RS and WEIGHT, which should be used.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The preponderence of opinion in published reliable sources need to take into account the varying reliability of sources
2) The preponderence of opinion in published reliable sources need to take into account the varying reliability of sources. Sources of lower reliability must be given lower or no weight when determining preponderence.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Bad sources, such as promotional ones, are often significant POVs, and should be included with proper attribution. "Most scientists" is just original research, and forbidden.  For determining the most WEIGHTty view of the subject, the most RS sources should be used, per a strict reading of RS. —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 21:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Some topics are well covered by the most reliable sources, such as secondary review articles in Nature (magazine). Others are not so well covered, but still notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. In that case, one should look at the most reliable published sources available. Sources with a lower reliability should be ignored and only the best one available used.  This is consistent with the previous principle, where "most scientists" and "news organisations" are less reliable on scientific topics. See also Parity of sources Pcarbonn (talk) 10:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: content issue; beyond the scope of ArbCom.
 * Oppose Martin's explanation, although the principle may be reasonable. Promotional sources are not necessarily bad.  After all, peer-reviewed scientific magazines "promote" the scientific method.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 02:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Parity of sources and no double standard
3) In any given article, the same standard of notability and reliability should be applied to all the sources, irrespective of their point of views.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. I've seen many violations of this rule, by many different editors. For example, editors support the presentation of the view of a scientific paper that they like, but not of another paper that is more notable and/or from a more reliable source, because they don't like it. Such violations can be seen in the current cold fusion article.  Pcarbonn (talk) 17:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a significant minority favorable to cold fusion
There is a significant minority of scientific opinion favorable to cold fusion.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * There is a significant portion of scientific opinion which reserves judgment till history shows a completely clear body of data on the matter. I don't know about favorable, but I don't know about Cold fusion. —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 04:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. I know that this is a content issue, but this could be a way for the ArbComm to start enforcing NPOV.
 * Oppose Content decision, and one only passingly relevant to the case at hand, citing evidence and commentary from a completely different case. Arbcom content decisions have been absolutely disastrous in the past, and I can't see how this would be any less problematic. This is neither an appropriate time nor place. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 12:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please note that this case was brought by Seicer, who made extensive reference to the cold fusion article in his initial statement. So, this question is relevant. Pcarbonn (talk) 15:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you give some examples of "absolutely disastrous content decision" from ArbComm. I'd be interested to understand this better. Thanks. Pcarbonn (talk) 16:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This is not a particularly contentious statement (it's actually the impression I get from reading the cold fusion article) but we're supposed to arrive at evaluations like this by discussion, not appeal to the arbitration committee. What makes it contentious, I think, is the conduct of a few editors in seeking to use this minority opinion as a wedge with which to give undue weight. --TS 16:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. (a) I think the finding is wrong: there is an insignificant minority support (b) I doubt arbcomm want to start making findings of this nature William M. Connolley (talk) 20:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose; the arbcom ruling on Cold Fusion is still warm (ahem) and attempting to reopen it so soon is borderline tendentious. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Cold fusion has already been discussed recently by ArbCom. Mathsci (talk) 00:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I have never seen a content fork delivered through a proposed finding of fact in an arbcom case. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Content issue. Outside the scope of Arbcom. ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 13:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

ScienceApologist has repeated violated NPOV
ScienceApologist has repeatedly violated NPOV.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Agree, obvious on many different articles. Has mis-represented science, very badly (and other evidence). —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 04:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed.Pcarbonn (talk) 08:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You could replace "ScienceApologist" with any random name, including yours, mine and User:Jimbo_Wales. I question whether it's humanly possible for any single individual to be "NPOV." See especially MPOV. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Seems to be an attempt to revisit arguments already considered in the "cold fusion" case, in which the Committee found that "the vast majority of the evidence presented related to questions (and disputes as to those questions) about the reliability of particular sources and the relative weight to be associated with various points of view, content questions which cannot be resolved by the Committee." (emphasis mine).  The Committee did find that Science Apologist edit-warred and was uncivil.  --TS 02:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * oppose (a) per TS (b) I disagree with you; the evidence shows SA trying to maintain NPOV William M. Connolley (talk) 21:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree somewhat with Boris. All editors have a POV and at times despite best efforts are NPOV. The issue is more possibly how often does this happen, how does the editor react when his NPOV is discussed pointed out, is there an effort to work on the situation, does the editor indicate through edit summaries and discussion that there is improvement in this area, if not does the editor need assistance with this ... and so on, and so on? An editor truly editing from a best effort NPOV would oe should show improvement one would think.(olive (talk) 19:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC))
 * support It is possible to be overly pro-establishement and pro-mainstream (i.e. POV-pusher). MaxPont (talk) 09:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. He might edit war and be uncivil, but his point of view is neutral. Many of those criticizing him are POV pushers. Mathsci (talk) 15:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Science and consensus
1) Encyclopedias are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that reflect the current consensus of scientific thought with due consideration for significant minority views within the scientific community, and regard for the historical debates which have formed the current consensus.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Agree. This is NPOV.  It would be much easier to go over to the d- I mean to SPOV, since nearly all the editors in this area feel that anything which is fringe/paranormal/unusual is to be basically debunked.  The main thing is that WP not be deceptive about its actual orientation.  Please adopt this only with full awareness of what "scientific consensus" actually means.  —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 21:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. I think the use of the term "mainstream" is misleading.  There is a pluralism in science with legitimate debate.  For instance, the extreme contingency of Gould, and the adaptationism of Hamilton and John Maynard Smith, both find a place under the umbrella of natural selection.  The classicism of Einstein and Schroedinger versus the radical interpretation of the Copenhagen school represent another debate.  In most of these debates one view tends to predominate (adaptationism tends to prevail in natural selection to some extent, and the Copenhagen school has triumphed in physics), but the debate must be described in its fullness if only for historical reasons.  --TS 14:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. This indeed avoids the use of "mainstream", a weasel word, and is in line with NPOV.  I wish that principle be applied to the current version of the cold fusion article.Pcarbonn (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The scientific establishment is a source of a huge amount of very reliable information. Nevertheless, it can be subject to influence from those who pay for ads in scientific journals; from those who fund research; and from processes such as ideological inertia and interpersonal dynamics, and therefore that information still needs to be taken with a small grain of salt. There are other sources of information which cannot always be totally left out of the NPOV equation.  Furthermore, this is not the forum for creation of new policy. ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 01:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well it is intended as a clarification of the application of neutral point of view. That's certainly not new policy. --TS 01:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  19:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support I acknowledge Coppertwig's concern about influence, but point out that they impact pretty much every source available, to a greater or lesser extent, so in the end that issue is merely subsumed into assessing reliability and weight.  Also, I should point out the statement is simply a logical consequence of NPOV and RS, so there is no new policy here, just a (badly needed) clarification of existing policy.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Science and politics
2) Encyclopedias must take care to avoid the politicization of their science coverage. Evidence uncovered by the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement and elsewhere (example) demonstrate systematic and well funded attempts by commercial interests to misrepresent science and discredit inconvenient scientific discoveries.  Wikipedia operates an open editing environment and, as a resource dedicated to the public interest, must perforce encounter and confront such attempts to mislead the public.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Support. It would help a great deal to note that some organizations undertake misrepresentation of science for purely ideological rather than commercial reasons.  —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 22:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Let's put this out in the open. --TS 15:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support, although the proposed phrasing discusses only the danger of organised conspiracies, while the sum of individual interest can have the same effect. This may very well apply to "Cold fusion vs Hot fusion", as well as "Homeopathy vs Physicians / Pharmaceutical companies". Even sticking to scholarly sources does not protect us fully from the danger you describe, but it sure helps.  Keeping a plurality of views also help, as you suggested above.  Pcarbonn (talk) 15:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems like a red herring for this particular case, although this could undoubtedly be a problem. Mathsci (talk) 16:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts perhaps this just muddies the waters. Although this is the context in which the advocacy takes place, much of the advocacy we see on Wikipedia involves good faith perceptions of the scientific community itself as some kind of manipulator.  Such impressions are encouraged by the tobacco and fossil fuel advocates, amongst others, but they did not all originate with those campaigns of disinformation. --TS 18:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Unsure whether this helps. Reliability of sources is worked out via discussion on article talk pages, etc.; there are no simple general answers. ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 01:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Unsure on this, though the thought is good, it kind of reads to me like a conspiracy theory a bit. I would like to see this add a little bit towards editors with different POV's to also not use politicization like what is being said in multiple threads on this page.  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  19:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose (the relevance, not the principle) per Mathsci (and TS's comment). It *could* be a problem, but perhaps surprisingly it doesn't seem to be William M. Connolley (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose per relevance here although agree in principle, especially the first sentence which is quite general. Agree with others' comments that there are other motivations for problematic editing.  I will add gold digging to the already impressive list.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. See also: Politicization of science MaxPont (talk) 09:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose, it describes the POV pushing against mainstream science, not against fringe science. On wikipedia's fringe science the POV pushing is done usually by individuals and small organizations who have also ideological interests, like Martinphi points out. Greatest problem is proponents of fringe science creating their own network of journals and conferences, to flood with varying quality papers, which aren't taken into account by mainstream science due to a series of problems on them, and which proponents will present on wikipedia as proof that there is a lot of serious investigation being done, and picking papers to show effects that are not accepted by the serious journals out of that network. There is a small problem of flawed studies funded by commercial companies like Boiron, but it's not very damaging for wikipedia as they use to get identified inmediately. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a very impressive statement of one of the problems we encounter here, and which (not really being experienced with the specific problems of editing fringe science articles on Wikipedia) I did not at first appreciate. --TS 16:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Science and propaganda
3) Advocates of notions that have little or no scientific support often manufacture a controversy over established science in order to make their alternatives appear more palatable. (see Teach the Controversy). Where it has been established as a fact that such deceptive tactics have been used, editors should be careful to distinguish their application from legitimate scientific dispute.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Attacks on evolution provide the most famous case but there are similar propaganda techniques in operation with respect to global warming and passive smoking (the latter established by evidence disclosed due to the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement).  The term "established as a fact" is intended to refer to reliable external sources such as the courts.  --TS 05:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. If I am understanding correctly what is being proposed here then the Chiropractic article is also a good example of some editors disrupting the progress with different tactics being applied. -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  19:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I doubt this is useful. There is nothing from the courts over GW, for example. And as far as I can tell, the CF advocates are sincere (but wrong) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Clearly true (e.g., Thimerosal controversy), but not sure it's relevant. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Civility and POV pushing
4) Superficial civility is not enough. Editors are expected to be cooperative and to observe all other policies.  Acting in a manner that frustrates and angers other editors, or wears them down by repeatedly agitating for a point of view, is not in keeping with the level of civility required of Wikipedia editors.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Agree. Lovely.  —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 04:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Also known as disruptive editing. Enforce that guideline, and many of these problems can be resolved. Jehochman Talk 17:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. This is aimed at civil POV pushers. --TS 06:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with the motivation am concerned about unintended consequences. I can easily see it being used against editors who adhere to our content policies, since experience has shown that this "frustrates and angers" those who want to include badly-sourced tiny-minority viewpoints. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well the idea is that we can distinguish those who persistently wikilawyer about including minority views from those who use discussion to build consensus on which are the more important views. This proposal is an attempt to strengthen the case for editing restrictions in such cases that reach arbitration.  As such it's aimed at future arbitration cases.  I assume that the intent of this case is just such forward-looking thinking. --TS 18:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps add something to indicate that circular or endless arguments are not allowed. Editors are expected to recognize when such unproductive situations develop and use dispute resolution rather than attrition to solve disagreements. Jehochman Talk 18:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree. I think that WP:TE needs to be enforced better than it is right now.  I agree with Jehochman that if this is  enforced better that a lot of the problems seen now will go away.  I feel civility is important to the project but unfortunately too many time the civility patrol hinders resolving the problems that caused the incivility in the first place.  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  19:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with the idea, but rather unsure that it can be made into workable policy William M. Connolley (talk) 21:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Agree in spirit, but implementation of anything actionable here might be tricky. The issues can be summed up as: being disruptive, even when being polite, may not be being civil.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with the general principle that tendentious editing is a problem that could use greater attention; and that effectively addressing such editing has been eschewed far too often for the easier targets of obvious breaches of civility. This does not excuse incivility, but highlights a current sociological pattern on Wikipedia that encourages the gaming of civility rules and content policies, which can generate further incivility whilst negatively affecting content and the collaborative editing environment. &mdash; Scientizzle 01:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The scope of the problem
1) Advocacy of fringe science concepts and non-scientific concepts has affected not only articles about those concepts, but is also a problem for articles about well established scientific topics such as human evolution, evolution as theory and fact, and influenza vaccine (see evidence)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Illustrating the scope of the problem. --TS 04:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree. I don't think I need to say anymore, this states the problems pretty well.  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  19:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

RS Principles
1) This proposal is that we apply WP:RS principles to all sources with regard to fringe, pseudoscience, and other such related articles. What this means is that we cannot accept any source that comes from a blog, opinion piece, a web site that does not have a peer review system in place, or any site that has a stated bias for or against the topic.  We should only accept sources from respectable third party peer reviewed sites/organizations/magazines/etc.  Any site that professes a bias for or against can only be accepted for it's opinion, not fact, despite the accuracy of it's research.  Blogs and essays may be used only for their authors opinions on the topic, but cannot be used as a reliable source to back up any stated fact.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I would support this totally if only you rewrote it with a awareness that such promotional sources can sometimes be notable as opinions, though they are not very WEIGHTy. There is no reason to leave out Skeptic's Dictionary completely, but it is not a good source for unattributed statements of fact. But it is a notable opinion. —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 22:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Brothejr (talk) 16:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * To the Arbitrators: When looking at this proposal, take a look at the comments below and how people worded them. More people are worried that they would not be able to add any criticism if this proposal would be put in place.  This brings up a good question: if any of the sources for the criticism does not stand up to the WP:RS policy, then why are they using the sources then?  It seems as if they don't want to apply the same policy to their sources that they apply to the fringe sources.  Now I am neither advocating for or against any fringe, but instead saying that the WP;RS policy applies to all sources and that every source should come from a third party peer reviewed journal, site, etc.  If their sources stand up to the policy, then it should be used without question.  Brothejr (talk) 21:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No. Our articles would be very much poorer if we did not, for instance, refer to Phil Plait's excellent debunking of various fringe theories.  Such sources are universally held to be very reliable, and only draw ire from those who wish to persist in their fringe beliefs. --TS 21:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, have those sources been peer reviewed? Do they come from third party sources that have no stated bias?  If the answer is no, then those sources violate the WP:RS policy and cannot be used.  If they have been peer reviewed and come from a RS, then they are perfectly fine to use.  While, these sources may be universally held to be reliable, have they been peer reviewed?  Has an editor/scientist checked their claims and verified that they are sound?  Has their article/essay/whatever been published in a peer reviewed journal?  If they have not, then no matter how true they are, they still fail the RS policy and could even conceivably be considered Original Research.  This is the standard across Wikipedia and it cannot be changed, altered, or ignored.  Brothejr (talk) 22:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Brotherjr is correct that such sources are often not reliable. For example, the Skeptic's Dictionary describes itself as one-sided and closed minded (or words to that effect).  They are notable opinions, they just need attribution. They do not necessarily represent consensus, let alone "scientific consensus" on a subject.  I'm surprised TS would promote the JREF as a RS- JREF is a highly partisan source, an even when what it says it true, it should be used as such, and more weight given to scholarly sources. —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 22:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't equate Phil Plait's writing (or that of Carl Sagan or James Randi) with that of the various writers in fields which they debunk. This is because they tend to involve themselves in fringe topics where clear thinking is not evident in the advocacy--their stated purpose in writing is to introduce that missing clarity of thought.  I am not familiar with the Skeptic's Dictionary so I couldn't comment. --TS 22:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * And I'm not familiar with the really broad range of fringe topics. Randi and such are extremely, well, right in most of what they say.  I merely contend that they are not reliable in the sense that you use them for bald statements of fact, as they are wont to be used.  So I agree.  I deal in the highly scientific parts of fringe, not the normal stuff which is complete bunk both in fact and in terms of the level of thinking.  I would think we are in agreement, so long as we pay close attention to attribution. Let me give an example of debunking: James Randi says parapsychology is a field of science, but ScienceApologist and others have been dead set against calling it that in Wikipedia.  That's debunking, when even the skeptics say something, but debunkers here want to be even more negative. —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 09:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I certainly wouldn't depend on Randi for the question of whether parapsychology is or is not a field of science--it's beyond his field of competence. He's pretty good, for instance, on how one can reproduce Uri Geller's various tricks.  Phil Plait's debunking (and we should not be afraid of that word) of the Apollo Hoax nonsense has been recommended by NASA. --TS 19:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure- with parapsychology it was much better sourced than Randi, and badly sourced the other way. I would not avoid Plait's work, only attribute.  My point was, debunking is when they won't accept good sourcing. —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 08:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Under specific circumstances, blogs can be used to establish that a certain person said a certain thing, for example. It's difficult to make generalizations about RS. ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 02:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This throws WP:PARITY down the toilet. Fringe topics with no mainstream coverage will suffer a lot from it. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:PARITY is against WP:RS, and must be thrown out. It was created by ScienceApologist as another trick so he could insert unreliable sources into WP. —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 09:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify your persistent opposition to WP:PARITY? It sounds like you're arguing that it's OK to argue fringe ideas using weak sources while mainstream rejoinders to those ideas face more stringent requirements for sourcing. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose. No not as worded. I think a lot of articles would suffer with this proposal.  Some references that are notable would be lost for use with this. I've seen WP:PARITY used a lot for reasons in debates, so other than the fact that User:ScienceApologist wrote it, what is the problem?  Even if he wrote it I'm sure its been heavily edited by other editors so it isn't SA's words or thoughts, it's the community that put it together.  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  20:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * oppose. RealClimate is used as a RS for various climate related articles, and wiki is the better for it. Blogs written by accepted experts in their field can be used as RS. The problem this addresses is an important one: fringe folk will push wacky ideas that as so wacky that mainstream journals don't even bother debunking them; expert blogs can and do solve this William M. Connolley (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose The reasoning of this statement is flawed: our policies and guidelines allow for a good deal of context-dependent discretion, always with the goal of writing a respectable encyclopedic reference work. The black-and-white picture described here is overly broad.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose, for various reasons. WP:PARITY is a reasonable option, even if it (combined with WP:RS) means that otherwise reliable sources about the subject cannot be used unless the well-known refutations can be sourced with reliable sources.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 02:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Debunking Vs. Promoting
2) Wikipedia is not here to debunk or promote a fringe topic. As such, all writing in the fringe article must be narrowly written to avoid the use of Weasel Words. to promote or debunk the topic of the fringe article and  Editors must refrain from any sort of bias in favor for or against the topic that would violate the WP:NPOV policy and must not give the fringe topic any undue weight that the sources do not support.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Agree, nicely put. —— Martinphi    Ψ~Φ —— 22:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed as standard. Brothejr (talk) 16:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * To the Arbitrators: Take a look at the various editor's wording down below. Look how they are arguing that this encyclopedia should not follow the WP:NPOV policy due to the fact that it might lend more weight to the fringe.  What I have been arguing here is that every article be written in a neutral manner.  This proposal brings into question various editor activities that look to supplant WP:NPOV in favor of one side or the other.  Brothejr (talk) 21:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Unworkable. How does it apply to motionless electromagnetic generator and other perpetual motion machines? Published peer-reviewed criticisms are WP:RS, WP:V and are therefore valid sources for wikipedia articles. The use of the word "debunking" in the proposal is unhelpful. Mathsci (talk) 17:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * How is this unworkable? Any topic can be written in a neutral manner neither promoting or debunking and that is what NPOV says and that is what every editor should strive for.  Also, the word debunking (As is promoting) is appropriate for this as it is the correct term for the action in question. Brothejr (talk) 20:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't quite understand what you mean by "debunking"? Please look at motionless electromagnetic generator or water memory, two theories rejected by the scientific community. These are written using peer-reviewed refutations of these theories in academic journals. Wikipedia reports on that using those sources. I don't see where "debunking" comes in. Mathsci (talk) 20:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Then let me ask you a clarifying question. Take a close look at those articles and how they are written.  Does the writing seem biased?  Does the writing seem to be pushing one point or another?  Does the article answer the simple question of what it is without throwing all sorts of rejections or promotions at the reader?  Also take a look at the meaning of the words: debunking, skeptic, rejecting, etc.  You may see that all those words are the same or similar.  I am not arguing the sources, but the writing itself.  As long as the sources come from a third party peer reviewed sources, then they are fine.  As long as the scientists who are rejecting the fringe are backed up by science that has been proven correct by their peers, and reported in a third party source, then it is worth using that source in the article.  As I stated, I'm talking about the wording, how the articles are written, and keeping any sort of bias out of the articles.  Brothejr (talk) 21:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * We would be failing in our duty to inform if readers left an article without access to the best information on the subject. Debunking of fringe beliefs should not be equated with advocacy. --TS 21:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And I am not arguing that. As long as it is written neutrally without imparting any bias to the reader.  Plus, the information is backed up by sources that have been peer reviewed and come from reliable third party sources, then we should impart that information to the reader.  Yet, if there is no peer reviewed papers/articles/etc written to back it up, then we cannot report it without violating the WP:RS policy.  Brothejr (talk) 21:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Debunking, by its very nature, is advocacy. Read the article.  Any debunking source like like JREF or Skeptic's Dictionary is advocacy, and though it may be notable enough to include, it should be done only with attribution.  There is a difference between studying (and coming up with no positive results) and debunking.  There are many examples of scientific "null or negative results."  The difference is usually obvious.  Speaking of debunking sources as appropriate for WP is a step beyond mere SPOV, of course.  I do not know why TS is here promoting debunking and other places seeming NPOV.  Debunking by its nature promotes the idea that fringe views are bunk.  —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 22:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As an encyclopedia Wikipedia certainly should highlight the faults in fringe ideas that stop them being accepted by the scientific consensus. This is inevitably going to look like debunking to those who accept the fringe ideas.  If we were not accused of being debunkers we would not be doing an adequate job--which is not to say that we should be actively partisan, only that we should present the science adequately.  We should be unrelentingly partisan in our commitment to the neutral presentation of the facts and the avoidance of poor thinking. --TS 22:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No, sir. We should be unrelentingly partisan in our commitment to neutral presentation of the sources.  Most sources will contain poor thinking, since most human thinking is poor.  We do not judge that.  If you're after presentation of "facts," you're just committed to POV pushing your version of the world, the Truth.  You depend on editors having the right consensus on "the facts."  That is why Wikipedia is supposed to rely on sources and present them by WEIGHT.  So we don't do what you just said.  After all, there are a lot more Creationists out there than evolutionists. You want to "highlight" something?  You get to do that if the sources do that, not otherwise.  You don't get to decide WEIGHT.  What you just said is SPOV, or rather, debunker POV.  If that's what you want, I suggest you put it into the decision, that we favor the truth of mainstream science and it's okay to cherry pick sources or do OR to "highlight" a certain POV.


 * To someone, it will always look like debunking. But as I said, other encyclopedias such as Britannica, don't debunk IMO, so why do we? —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 01:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No, what I described is neutral point of view. Certainly we weight sources, which is why you won't find creationist nonsense presented as fact on Wikipedia.  When I say that we present facts in a neutral manner, I'm referring specifically to statements such as "Archaic Homo sapiens evolved between 400,000 and 250,000 years ago" (Human evolution).  We do not present well established scientific facts as opinions just because some people may differ with the scientific consensus.  --TS 01:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think you did, as I explained, but I doubt we would have any difficulty in editing an article together. The result would normally be the same, but I would not think it proper to take an otherwise unreliable source such as a blog and insert it as "the scientific consensus" just because it was the only source on the matter.  I would rather rely on a statement that the fringe view was "not accepted" rather than saying it was rejected by the scientific consensus.  That is a more practical way of explaining where I'm coming from, grounded in what actually happens.  I also do not think that Quackwatch and such are RS for bald statements of fact, but they are notable and fine when attributed.  One must make sure that a true scientific consensus exists before just stating facts, but there is a scientific consensus on Creationism.  —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 08:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks as if we're arguing to cross purposes. I certainly wouldn't take the contents of a blog as authoritative on anything except the contents of the blog. Material specifically written by Barrett is a reliable source for his opinion as an expert in medical fields and as a longtime watcher of medical charlatans or quacks as they are known.  I'd give far more weight to him on medical matters than, for instance, Ilena Rosenthal --TS 19:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, it's a matter of attribution. And you don't refuse to explain Rosenthal's ideas on an articles about said ideas, just because Rosenthal is a bad source. —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 08:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well we don't cover Rosenthal at all except as a defendant and a former editor. --TS 17:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose as currently worded. It could be taken as implying that the SPOV and a fringe POV should be presented with equal weight or as equally likely to be true, which would go against WP:UNDUE. ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 02:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose: As far aas I can tell, "debunking", as used on Wikipedia, is just a loaded term for "including relevant criticism from scientists". Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 12:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This reads like a way to give more weight to fringe ideas that is allowed.  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  20:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose as wholly inconsistent with WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV. We summarize what reliable sources say without hiding either negative information ("debunking") or positive information ("promotion") from the reader. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's right, but debunking here is not about reporting debunking. Further, negative information is not debunking. Debunking by its nature is not scientific, therefore not "information."  But a notable POV. —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 00:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Etymologically, to oppose de-bunk-ing is to prefer bunk. So I would prefer a clearer phrase like "skeptical bias". Art LaPella (talk) 23:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's this kind of "your with me or against me" kind of attitude that makes for debunking. Debunking violates NPOV. —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 00:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Facts should speak for themselves. The articles about Hitler. Saddam och Bin Laden are not debunking these people. The facts speak for themselves. Condoning Debunking is a free for all to insert POV bias in the articles. MaxPont (talk) 10:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You say we don't debunk Hitler. If you look at our article Adolf Hitler, you'll see: "His forces committed numerous atrocities during the war, including the systematic genocide of an estimated six million Jews, known as the Holocaust, as well as various other groups of people."  None of Hitler's chiefs of staff ever admitted such a thing and to this day his supporters deny it.  We debunk those claims, to the extent that we don't even give them serious consideration as alternative opinions.  Our article on Holocaust denial correctly treats this as a pathological form of revisionism rather than legitimate historical revisionist analysis.  Contrary to your claim above, our coverage of the Nazis is a good example of applying due weight to extreme claims to the extent where they are treated as a pariah dogma. We can, should and do debunk bunk. --TS 10:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Whenever the term "debunk" comes up on this page, the resulting discussion reveals a subtle false dichotomy between advocating for something (promoting) and advocating against something (debunking). There is a third option: reflecting what reliable sources say, with the allowance for, but not the necessity of, a reasonable reader coming away from an article understanding a topic is either discredited/ignoble or accepted/praiseworthy, as dictated by RS and WEIGHT. (The second term of each pair is a rough analog in the case of BLPs, institutions, etc.)


 * This distinction can be put another way: Wikipedia is descriptive, not proscriptive. So long as the condemning statements about debunking/promoting refer to editing that renders an article proscriptive, they are indeed appropriate.  But when the debunked/promoted impression comes about solely from the empirical consequence of appropriately weighted sourced material used descriptively, then the condemnation does not apply.  (And yes, some edits can be both; goose and gander and all that...)


 * It is clear to me in my 2 plus years on the project that not all editors edit in a way that suggests they understand this distinction (or, to be fair, they don't even recognize that WP is not proscriptive, but that's another RFAr case...). I strongly encourage all discussants here to consider this distinction and to understand it.  I have no doubt that the committee members understand this (and that many discussants here do as well).  I fully expect their findings to reflect this understanding.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I presume you mean "not prescriptive" (subtle difference of spelling, big difference of meaning). --TS 21:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * groan, yes that's right.  Thanks for debunking my vocabulary skills :-)  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose The opposite of "debunking", which implies that the subject is bunk, isn't "promoting"; it's "confirming", which implies that the subject is true. Of course we need to resist a skeptical bias, but confusing a skeptical bias with removing bunk is to use the word "debunking" as Newspeak. Art LaPella (talk) 21:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

SPOV, Fringe POV (FPOV), and NPOV
3) SPOV and FPOV are both points of view on the subjects, yet neither overrules NPOV and each must not give themselves more or less undue weight in accordance to the reliable sources.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * What is FPOV? —— Martinphi    Ψ~Φ —— 02:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * FPOV = Fringe POV --B (talk) 02:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh. Agree then as standard. But very necessary for the ArbCom to state. —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 04:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed so that we can identify the points of view in relation to NPOV, undue weight, and reliable third party peer reviewed sources. If there are enough RS that show that so and so theory, finding, etc is the main prevailing thought concerning the fringe topic, then we must report it so in a neutral and unbiased manner.  Brothejr (talk) 12:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * To the Arbitrators: This proposal was made as an addendum to proposal number two. Simply put, both sides are points of views and they should be regarded as such.  When we are dealing with fringe articles and only fringe articles, then we must be fair and neutral.  We must not give one side or another any bias for or against and present the article in a neutral manner so that the reader can come to their own conclusion.  Brothejr (talk) 21:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Extremely ill conceived proposal. When discussing topics treating science, there is no "alternative" point of view independent of the scientific method. The peer-reviewed literature produced by the scientific community is the main source for writing this type of wikipedia article. In general fringe science is work that has been rejected for publication in peer-reviewed journals due to errors or inconsistencies, whether accidental or deliberate. Often it can just be incompetent junk. It is a fallacy to suggest that it represents an alternative point of view, just as it is a fallacy to think that various parts of science are in a finished state: this is evidently not the case in theoretical physics, where various competing theories are still being developed and usually not classified as fringe or otherwise. It might be helpful to give an illustration from my own discipline, mathematics: the world is full of would-be provers of Fermat's last theorem; most are incompetent amateur loners with delusions of grandeur; and what they produce is junk science, unpublishable anywhere. Fringe science or pseudoscience can make it onto the pages of wikipedia because of the notoriety of the originator or the proposed theory itself (eg see the BLP of Jack Sarfatti or the Bogdanov affair). I have also witnessed the willful falsification of experimental evidence in chemistry; when results are faked in real life, this can be a very messy business, particularly if academic degrees are involved. In one case the perpetrator tried to get support by representing what he/she had done as a "paradigm shift". Mathsci (talk) 14:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So are you saying the SPOV (Scientific Point Of View) is the same as the scientific method and that only scientists practice the scientific method? Also, are you saying the SPOV is the same as NPOV? Brothejr (talk) 15:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, one other question I wanted to ask: how is the scientific method applied to writing an encyclopedia article? Brothejr (talk) 16:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * From experience, prior training is required in reading scientific literature. I'm not sure why anybody should find that surprising. It's one reason that the university system exists in real life. At present, I couldn't even start to read an article or review in molecular biology, even if I have friends who are world experts in the subject. Mathsci (talk) 18:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a very good reason why sourcing is supposed to be from reliable secondary sources, not primary. I have written a number of articles without having any prior knowledge of the subject, e.g. Zermelo set theory, simply by using the citation and sourcing rules I learned as part of my own academic discipline. Peter Damian (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * [edit] On the question about whether the 'Scientific point of view' is the same as the scientific method. Again THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC POINT OF VIEW.  There is just a method.  There is also something called 'scientific consensus', which changes all the time, as a result of the method. Peter Damian (talk) 19:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Needs to be reworded; could be taken as implying that FPOV and SPOV are to be treated with equal weight. WP:UNDUE says "Articles ... will generally not include tiny-minority views at all."  Does "fringe" mean the same thing as "tiny-minority"? ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 17:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, then what would your suggestion be on wording to strengthening this to take into account undue weight? One of the main issues here is what is SPOV and does it trump NPOV?  Everyone keeps on bandying about SPOV as if it is the same as NPOV or that it overrides NPOV.  The problem I see is that NPOV trumps everything else.  Plus, looking at it from an outsider perspective, SPOV and FPOV are both just POV's and neither are neutral.  I am not arguing to give any fringe undue weight as much as in our push for SPOV, editors are breaking a major policy here (I.E. NPOV).  If you want to show any "mainstream viewpoint" on a fringe, then it has to be couched in the same strong sources that is stressed for the fringe.  If there are no sources to back up a fringe theory, then we cannot report it truthfully.  Also, on the reverse side, while we have people saying that so and so fringe theory is completely false and crazy, and there are no strong peer reviewed sources that can truthfully back up that statement, then we cannot report it as fact, but opinion.  My reasoning to this is this: if there are more sources that point to the fringe being truthful then there are sources that point against it, we need to neutrally present it that way and it also the same in reverse.  Just because an editor feels/knows that the fringe is wrong, does not mean their POV overrides the other.  They still need to back it with sources for it to be asserted.  Otherwise their POV can only be considered an opinion.  This is part of the fundamental problem here. Brothejr (talk) 17:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I don't have a suggested rewording at the moment. One problem is I'm not clear on exactly what point you're trying to make: perhaps just re-iterating that NPOV is the policy.  In reply to your comment, though: on fringe articles, it doesn't work to define due weight based on the preponderance of opinion in the sources on that topic, because most of the material on the topic may be promoting the fringe view; perhaps the fringe topics are ignored and not mentioned by most mainstream sources.  It's not easy to handle these situations. ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 18:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Desparately ill-conceived proposal. There is no "alternative" point of view independent of the scientific method, and other rules commonly observed in citation and sourcing. Must we really put up with this? Peter Damian (talk) 19:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This is not the place for a wholesale rewrite of established policy and guidelines (see WP:WEIGHT, WP:RS, and others). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support, as long as the fringe point of view is weighted as it should be: not overwhelming the whole article, but not removed if it is a known viewpoint. In nearly all cases the scientific point of view is the same as the neutral point of view, but where the two slightly diverge, people should go for NPOV, not SPOV. Sceptre (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment While true, the comparison of FPOV and NPOV is redundant, almost absurdly so. And SPOV is really only the application of NPOV to a particular subset of articles.  It has no real meaning outside of that excpet perhaps as a misdirection tactic in a content dispute.   Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * One comment: I think how you equate SPOW and NPOW as being the same, quite interesting. Saying it a different way would be: my POV is NPOV and everyone else who disagrees with me should be discounted because they are not NPOV.  The problem is that SPOV is a POV no matter how you argue it.  Also, SPOV does not equate to the Scientific Method.  The Scientific Method is just that a method and not a POV.  Scientists have a POV and most people are arguing that here, that their POV is more important then anyone else.  When the problem is that they do have POV's.  We need to discount their POV's, but stick to the facts.  If the facts or findings disprove a fringe, then we need to present that.  If there are no facts or findings that can disprove that, then we cannot reasonably say that it is false other then to state our POV.  Basically this: the policies of WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV apply to all sources and everyone.  No one is exempt from them and everyone must abide by them.  While you may say something is wrong, yet if you do not have anything to back your statements up, then all you can express is your POV.  Brothejr (talk) 10:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Much of your discussion hinges on the premise that I equate SPOV and NPOV as being the same. As I did no such thing, those parts of your discussion do not apply, at least to my comments.  In addition, much of the rest of your thread of reasoning is borderline incoherent.  You may wish to refactor so the committee (and us discussants) can understand it.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

SPOV and the Scientific Method
4) Scientific Point Of View (SPOV) is not the Scientific Method, but is just a point of view of scientists. Where as the Scientific Method is just a method that is practiced by a variety of people including, but not limited to, scientists.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Agree. —— Martinphi    Ψ~Φ —— 04:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed so that we can differentiate SPOV from the Scientific Method. Brothejr (talk) 12:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * To the Arbitrators: Looking at the comments below, and also at the various comments in my other proposals, show truly what is going on here. It seems that there is an Us Vs. Them  mentality going on here.  If you look at how they quickly oppose my proposals on the basis, that either A) they would enable the fringe or B) I myself must be a fringe pusher based upon the fact that I don't completely agree with them.  I've been attacked by being told that my proposals are unclear, yet when asked to help clarify them and also start a dialog over how to better improve them, those who oppose clam up.  Also, take a look at Woonpton's  evidence.  His evidence is mainly to say that I took his statement out of context, even though it was exactly what I was talking about.  Further still, he and others seem to have the problem with the word: Debunking.  Yet, the word is rather appropriate to the actions and context going on here.  Those who see this as a battle, also see the term debunking as mainly a derision used be the opposition.  Finally one last thought, take a look at the undercurrent theme running through a lot of the comments here.  This theme seems to be that only scientists know best when it comes to the science articles on wikipedia and all those who do not agree with them cannot be scientists, do not use the scientific method, and thus must be a fringe advocate.  Brothejr (talk) 10:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Coren has it about right in his proposed principle "Science is not a point of view" on the proposed decision. "That coverage of a topic is primarily scientific does not prevent it from being (nor obviates the need to be) neutral."  Our coverage of topics in the natural world should be scientific.  The use of the term "scientific point of view" seems to be an attempt to define science as just one faction in a debate, in order to present fringe viewpoints as another faction deserving considerable weight.  The above proposal seems to be another such attempt. --TS 12:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is no such attempt to give any more weight to the fringe. Just to delineate that SPOV is just that a POV.  I think we need to step away from this idea of that if you do not support the SPOV, then you must support the fringe.  This is the core of what Coren is talking about.  I have always, and I would think most people here do, supported NPOV.  NPOV neither supports the fringe or the scientists, but the facts and we must go wherever the facts takes us.  If you profess to follow the Scientific Method, then that means that you follow the facts wherever they take you.  Brothejr (talk) 13:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well the point of Coren's proposal is that what is sometimes called SPOV is not a point of view. I agree that it's all rather complex and I may well have misread your intent. --TS 13:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec) Again Brothejr has produced a garbled proposal, which makes little or no sense. What is clear is that many of those pushing fringe science are anti-establishment and some of them have had no formal training in science. Their attempts to argue that the rules of wikipedia are in fact in line with this anti-establishment point of view can wear down neutral editors. The abuse being hurled at SA here and elsewhere is shocking, but not surprising. He "and his friends" (the scientific establishment?) are accused of being "pro-establishment" and "right wing". The use of these phrases is unthought-out and reads like a desparate attempt to justify an untenable position. How likely are arbitrators to value statements by editors that have openly rejected the establishment, which in particular contains the university system? Most encyclopedias (eg the Encyclopedia Britannica) are written in collaboration with academics. Mathsci (talk) 14:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Um, like I said above, I am not pushing for the fringe, I am not anti-establishment nor am I rejecting the establishment, and what I am stating is quite clear. I also would like to question why I am now being attacked and labeled as a fringe pusher?  This seems to be the core problem here.  various editors seem to be trying to label anyone who does not see things exactly as they do as fringe.  Let me repeat: I am not hear to push for the fringe, I am not anti-establishment, my proposals have been clear (If you don't think so, instead of attacking me, why not suggest how to reword the proposal to make it more clear.), and I completely 100% support WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:WEIGHT.  Brothejr (talk) 14:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You were not labeled as anything; I made a general statement about this page. I find that your specific proposal made no sense at all. You seem far too attached to "SPOV", whatever that might be. There's really no need to play semantic games with this dubious acronym. Mathsci (talk) 14:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Then, might I ask you why Coren chose to say this: . If it does not make sense to you or is garbled, why not ask a question or two, or maybe suggest a better word/wording.  The wording of this proposal is essentially the same as Coren's and I am saying the same as he is. Brothejr (talk) 14:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Because it makes no sense to talk of a "scientific point of view" when discussing the editing of fringe science articles. Your wording is not the same as Coren's. Perhaps unwittingly, your proposal allows fringe pushers to label scientific academics as SPOV pushers. This seems unhelpful. Mathsci (talk) 14:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Um, I still don't understand? How could this ever be able to allow the fringe to do anything they cannot already do if they so choose to.  Also, I am saying exactly the same thing Coren is even if the wording may be diffrent.  SPOV is Science Point Of View and also Scientist's Point Of View which both are exactly the same thing.  You seem to be seeing everything as a sort of black and white in that it is either fighting the fringe or enabling the fringe.  As I stated, this is exactly the same thing as Coren's, whether you want to see it or not.  So to me, it seems as if you have a problem with what Coren is proposing.  Brothejr (talk) 14:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The use of labels like SPOV is one of the tactics used by fringe POV pushers to wear down neutral editors by needlessly prolonging discussions. Days could be spent arguing whether some particular edit represented "SPOV".  So far I haven't expressed any opinion on Coren's principles. I can tell you now that I found them extremely well thought out. I was pleasantly surprised and relieved to read them. He did not suggest using the acronym SPOV and this is not wikipedia policy as far as I am aware. If you are in agreement with Coren's principles, why try to rewrite them here? Personally I totally reject the possibility of an unneutral so-called "scientific point of view" when discussing fringe science. I hope that is clear now. Mathsci (talk) 15:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose While I don't condone some of Mathsci's rhetorics, I would agree that the term SPOV is a complete red herring. It is simply a label describing the natural consequence of NPOV, RS, etc. when applied to certain articles.  So I vehemently disagree with the proposition that "[SPOV] is just a ["the"?] point of view of scientists".  This is a (perhaps inadvertant) case of rehashing something acceptable (NPOV/RS/...) as something else not so (a particular POV), very analogous the the tactic of accusing legitimate criticism of a topic as being bigotry against the topic.


 * The commentary on the scientific method is unobjectionable, if poorly worded. But it is also irrelevant as far as I can see.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

What Coren put in the decision may be a waste of computer memory. But maybe not: it says scientists have a POV. Obvious, but the work of scientists is too often equated with the method of science. The method does not have a POV, the work may (the method may have some very basic POV, but nevermind). That's what Coren said, and it's true, and may be of use one of these days. He says it isn't true that an article on science cannot be NPOV, and he says that it still needs to be NPOV. IOW, it's like any other subject.


 * 1) SPOV = scientific method = no POV
 * 2) Scientist's POV = whatever POV they happen to have
 * 3) An article on science can be NPOV
 * 4) That an article is about a science does not obviate the need to be NPOV
 * 5) (synthesis): an article on science using the sources written by scientists is still in danger of becoming POV, since scientists can hold a POV.

There is no real difference here with any other topic. The involvement of the scientific method is a neutral factor. Dragon slain.

SPOV as used in WP = debunker POV, that is the POVs of editors in Wikipedia who wish to bias the reader toward a particular POV which they believe to be in line with the results of investigations (which can be flawed), the opinions of scientists, or with the opinions of skeptics who are not scientists.

Debunking may be recognized as an active promotion of disbelief or derision in Wikipedia articles. —— Martinphi    Ψ~Φ —— 04:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing
2) It is understandable that editors can become frustrated in dealing with editors on various articles, however, severe incivility, personal attacks and harassment on- and off-Wikipedia should result in sanctions.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I believe that this can eliminate many of the frivolous requests for action regarding the most minor of offences. seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  02:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Maybe once or three times, but after a while you have to look at whether a slightly uncivil editor is degrading the collegiality of the environment.  As Jimbo has said, we need a better environment, not a worse one. —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 02:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Although, perhaps if you translated that into English I might find something to agree with... —— Martinphi    Ψ~Φ —— 04:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * How do you plan to stalk yourself, and why should your edits in this endeavor be treated as frivolous? My apologies if this sounds like a silly question, but are you aware that you are the  filing party? --Noren (talk) 02:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The second sentence is almost impossible to understand. Could Seicer please rewrite it? Mathsci (talk) 13:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I like where (I think) this is going, but as worded it is hard to understand and see how it would help implement actionable things to improve the project. It reads too instruction-creepy, given that its impact might be minimal.  I may revisit if it is clarified.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Yeah, I think I confused myself there. I was meaning for future reports that could be coined frivolous, such as the almost daily repeats at Arb Enforcement that occurred last year. Since it was poorly worded, I've removed it. seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  02:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Content policies and guidelines
1) In order to further the project's goal of creating a respected reference work the Wikipedia community has adopted a number of content-oriented policies and guidelines. These policies state that content should be verifiable and notable, that content should be presented from a neutral point of view and with due weight, and that content should be derived from reliable sources, among other requirements.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * This would be boring, except basically, it's SPOV in fringe articles, as editors here have made clear. —— Martinphi    Ψ~Φ —— 02:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support -- Crohnie Gal Talk  16:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Administrators and content disputes
2) Although not explicitly prohibited in Wikipedia's policy page for administrators there is a community consensus that administrators not serve as referees in content disputes; i.e., they are not to decide which point of view in disputed content is right or wrong.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Wonderful. This is so, and some don't seem to notice it. —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 02:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. There may be an arbcom case on this somewhere. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Strictly speaking, they are to act with other editors in a civil and collegial manner, leading by example, in determining content by consensus.  Just like any other editor but with knobs on.  Egregiously poor judgement in use of the tools is considered a desysopping matter. Specifically: "Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist. With few specific exceptions where tool use is allowed by any admin, administrators should ensure they are reasonably neutral parties when they use the tools." (from Administrators). --TS 04:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. "Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators. Administrators should also be aware of potential conflicts of interest involving pages or subject areas with which they are involved." WP:Blocking ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 02:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Administrators and content policy
3. As distinct from ruling on content disputes, administrators have a constructive role to play in enforcement of content policies. This may include reminders, warnings or sanctions for editors who persistently violate content policies.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Yes. Often, the persistent content policy violations go hand in hand with behavioral violations, particularly disruptive editing. Jehochman Talk 03:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope, not even the ArbCom rules on content, usually. Certainly, admins don't.  Also, you are destroying your own case: if there are behavioral issues then you don't need to enforce content.  If there are no behavioral issues, such as pushing against a large consensus, you should not enforce content.  This is just another way of saying that we elect admins to judge the content of articles, and if they don't like the content, sanction the editor who put it in. —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 04:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you arguing instead that content policies cannot be enforced, and that editors may disregard content policies at will and with impunity? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, to the extent that they do not disruptively violate consensus. That's the way WP works on a very basic level. —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 05:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This is one of the functions of administrators. Persistent POV pushing is not an uncommon block reason.  It's all part and parcel of dealing with disruptive editing. --TS 04:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No, it is not. Admins are abusing their tools when they enforce content alone. —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 05:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well there is justification in the blocking policy and the disruptive editing guideline. It isn't about enforcing (one admin's notion of) the content policy--you'd be right to say that is abusive sysopping.  It's about dealing with disruptive editors, and we can and do enforce everything up to indefinite community bans, subject to community consensus that an editor's conduct merits it.   --TS 06:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think what SBHB is saying is straightforward: it's very easy to get blocked for replacing content with "GEORGE BUSH IS TEH GHEY". It's very hard to get blocked for repeatedly abusing sources and ignoring consensus to push an unencyclopedic agenda (in this recent case, it took 6 months and an ArbCom decision to resolve one of the most blatant cases of abusive agenda-driven editing I've ever seen - it should have taken a week). I think SBHB is proposing we level the playing field - let's acknowledge that unencyclopedic, agenda-driven editing is, if anything, a BIGGER threat to the encyclopedia than silly vandalism - and let's treat it as such. This has absolutely nothing to do with admins enforcing their view of appropriate content - that's a red herring. MastCell Talk 16:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Support I think this is a given and needs to be enforced to stop certain behaviors. -- Crohnie Gal Talk  16:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * support: should be boringly standard, though perhaps worth reminding people of, but it appears that some disagree William M. Connolley (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Extremely sensible proposal. Mathsci (talk) 00:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Of course. It should go without saying that condemning an editor's behavior is not necessarily condemning that same editor's desired content, merely their means of trying to include it.  But perhaps not, so I said it.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No. Admins are editors with a few tools.They are driven by the same possibilities of opinion and POVs as any other editors, and they have no more abilities to decide what content is correct appropriate than any other editor. If ArbCom can't enforce or police content why would individual admins. Content is community, consensus, agreement driven, and the Wikipedia community has in place a chain of steps to deal with content. Pretty scary placing such decisions into the hands of one person.(olive (talk) 20:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC))
 * Who is "No" directed to? What you are saying is consistent with both the proposed finding and my post.   Baccyak4H (Yak!) 21:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Misread Boris's statement:Clarification: I refer to Boris's statement above. Editors in their roles as admins. should not be dealing with content. (olive (talk) 23:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC))
 * Please notice that in both proposals I was careful to distinguish the refereeing of content disputes from enforcement of content policies. They are different issues, as Baccyak4H succinctly notes. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I read your statement carelessly probably foggy from a morning of wading through this stuff. Baccyyak, I suspect I was writing just as you posted and I didn't see your statement above. Apologies to both, and will comment again.(olive (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC))
 * Persistent violations of WP:NPOV, argumentum ad nauseam, gaming, wikilawyering, feigned ignorance of what constitutes a civil discussion, false claims of consensus (or its lack), misrepresentation of sources, etc. are all behaviors that are disruptive and admins should be encouraged to act when editors abuse or ignore policies in these ways. Dlabtot (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * support admins should intervene on blatant content policy violations. Case in point, people repeatedly blanking sourced facts that they don't like and giving arguments that are clearly against WP:V. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Too broad. Administrators do have a role to play, especially with violations of BLP and copyvios, but many (most? all?) content disputes involve differences of opinion about the nuances of how to apply policy in a specific situation, and are best decided by a consensus of many editors, not by a limited group e.g. specifically administrators.  If there is a rough consensus and someone is editwarring against that consensus, administrators have a role in controlling that editor, but the consensus itself should be decided by the general community, not specifically administrators. ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 02:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Hostile editing environment
1) ScienceApologist has contributed to a hostile editing environment on Wikipedia.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed —— Martinphi    Ψ~Φ —— 04:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Support. Massive evidence sush as these can't be ignored or excused. MaxPont (talk) 07:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with this finding, but it's incomplete. If we're listing people who have contributed significantly to a hostile editing environment on Wikipedia, this finding needs to add a dozen or so names to be anything other than a selective attack on an opponent. MastCell Talk 16:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If you think there is evidence missing from the case, you should provide it. Add the 'dozen or so names' along with diffs of their egregious behavior. Dlabtot (talk) 16:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with you MastCell, but I don't know how to do it in a practical sense. Any ideas? —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 22:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If I thought it was a good use of my time to present more diffs here, I would. In practice, Wikipedia's processes - including Arbitration - are so clunky and painful that I try to deal with all but the absolute worst POV-pushing by other means. To me, it's obvious who the problem editors are, and one of the reasons they're problems is that their behavior defies easy encapsulation in a few diffs. I'd rather see this case focus on the means available for dealing with harmful editing practices, rather than banning a list of "evildoers" and then having a new group crop up in a few months. MastCell Talk 04:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, now I'm totally curious to know who's on your list besides me and SA. You could email me.... (:  —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 04:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Both the truth of the finding, and of MastCell's 5000 pound gorilla, are beyond reproach. I should point out my fear that dealing with either issue, but not both, may make the project worse off than doing nothing.   Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Debunking
2) There has been debunking of fringe views on Wikipedia. By "Debunking" we mean the denigration or expunging of notable fringe views.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. This will be supported especially by the views of the mainstream scientists. —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 04:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Does this carry the implication that fringe views should instead be accepted uncritically? If not, please clarify. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a finding of fact, Boris. Please see number 11 under Proposed principles below. —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 04:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Unhelpful definition of the word "debunk" (see Merriam-Webster online for the accepted meaning).  I've seen this definition used in fringe circles, where it seems to function as a plug of cotton wool in the ear. --TS 04:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Unhelpful dictionary definition. It leaves out the intent. Just fiddle with it and say "to write an article with the intent to expose the sham or falseness of an idea," and you have why it's wrong on WP.  —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 04:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Exposing sham and imposture is an important part of vigorous intellectual debate. If for instance some people persistently push the 1989 DOE report on cold fusion as something it is not, the imposture will be relentlessly exposed.  That's debunking.  We can't adopt the neutral point of view if we permit ourselves to be misled as to the facts. --TS 05:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * On the talk page. Debunking is fine on the talk page. —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 05:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * So you mean that in your view the articles have been written to debunk, and you distinguish debunking, principally, as a matter of intention? As you put it, "to write an article with the intent to expose the sham or falseness of an idea".  Well obviously if we write an article about, say, intelligent design, it would be wrong to present it in such a manner that did not correctly describe it as a deliberate and planned attempt to misrepresent religious concepts as scientific.  In that sense, debunking is inevitable.  Because, you know, the creationists really want everybody to believe that intelligent design is a scientific alternative to evolution.


 * Similarly there has been so much nonsense in the global warming controversy that one does have to say things like "to the extent that a controversy exists [over whether antarctic cooling trends contradict global warming models] it is confined to the popular press and blogs; there is no evidence of a related controversy within the scientific community". This is necessary just as it is necessary to say, in the article on Searches for Noah's Ark, that "Despite many rumours, claims of sightings and expeditions no scientific evidence of the ark has ever been found" for the existence of the remnants of a large old boat corresponding to descriptions in the traditional tales.  Yes, we debunk Noah's Ark!  And so we should.


 * We're here to present a neutral point of view written from the reliable sources. Much of what is believed by people who have not read our encyclopedia does not come from reliable sources, and we must be polite but firm in our approach to this.  We cannot ignore folk wisdom and urban legends, and at times we have to say "despite what you may have heard, we find no reliable source confirming it" and (possibly) "on the contrary we find much opinion to the contrary from reliable sources." --TS 06:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a subtle false dichotomy here, between "expose the sham or falseness of an idea" and "not expose the sham or falseness of an idea". A third option is "reflect the sham or falseness of an idea".  This can be a viable alternative, and in some relevant cases it certainly is the best one.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Martinphi is a strong promoter of Fringe views, who has repeatedly stated that no fringe ideas should ever be challenged in articles on their subject ((changing policy; likewise in this link, for instance, first paragraph, he says that What the Bleep Do We Know?!, a movie that was widely criticised by huge numbers of scientists, should have no discussion of those scientists' views. Martin does not want NPOV, he clearly just wants his POV. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 06:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see how your attack against Martinphi is relevant here. Should I list what I perceive as your shortcomings? Would that be relevant? Dlabtot (talk) 06:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have any comment to make about the proposed finding of fact? Dlabtot (talk) 07:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That is indeed an attack. —— Martinphi    Ψ~Φ —— 06:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Martin, you have a history of editing policy to better attack others (You specifically admit that was your intent in some edits of WP:CIVIL here), or to push your POV more effectively. One does not want you gaming Arbcom as well. You have abused Arbcom findings in the past, notably, after the Paranormal case, you insisted that parapsychology should always be considered as mainstream science. ( and elsewhere). In the clarification launched over the finding you were using, (Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Paranormal), you argued against the Arbitrator's clear statements, saying that it should be a statement of how parapsychology should be treated even as they all told you that it should not be. Then threw a fit and said the Arbcom should be thrown out. It would be better for everyone involved if we avoided bad findings which you have shown that you will abuse to push your POV, which will then have to be clarified as not justifying your use of them later. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 07:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I would again ask you if you think it would be relevant for me at this juncture to list your shortcomings and to provide diffs to edits that illustrate them? Are your past moral and intellectual lapses relevant to this conversation? Dlabtot (talk) 07:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Am I proposing findings of fact and proposed decisions that would assist me in pushing views in ways that have been rejected by the community? Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 09:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * By your unwillingness to address my question, you are implicitly acknowledging that you are engaging in a personal attack here. I suggest you refactor. Dlabtot (talk) 17:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If it's relevant to the case I suggest that it belongs on the evidence page. I think it probably is relevant to the overall case, but I'm not sure these instances demonstrate a serious or protracted enough problem in the particular to need arbitrator intervention.  Martinphi has decided to retire from article editing in any case so it's probably moot. --TS 17:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, he'll be back. This is his fifth or so "retirement", and I've never seen one last more than a week or two. But now isn't really the time for findings about Martinphi, I merely seek to point out that the findings he seeks are likely to be abused badly if passed, as he has a long history of such behaviour. Here, he seeks to get the Arbcom to say that "debunking" is a problem, at which point, as he defines "debunking" as "critical views presented effectively", would be used to justify massive content deletions. His behaviour after the closure of the Paranormal case with the "Three layer cake with frosting" and "Cultural artifacts" findings demonstrates this. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should institute a formal retirement process, whereby anyone who 'retires' is permanently banned from Wikipedia. Now that's something that would enormously lessen the high-school-level drama around here. Dlabtot (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be fair to clarify here that Martinphi's retirement as clearly stated by him on his user talk page is from editing in general/articles, and that he clearly indicates he will be taking part in this ArbCom. Since his retirement is based on a discomfort with the environment surrounding "fringe", also stated on his user talk page, it would seem logical that he would submit evidence which in his mind would improve that environment. This is not a topic for discussion here, but also the above comment may have cast an unfair light on an commenting editor on this case.(olive (talk) 19:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC))


 * Lets not confuse the legitimacy of debunking off of Wikipedia with debunking in a Wikipedia article. One describes possible attempts to enlighten on some topic area, the other is a  POV process since it requires  POV  choices and action to begin the process of debunking. On Wikipedia debunking, then, is POV and as a non negotiable policy not allowed.(olive (talk) 21:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC))


 * It's true that editors are not allowed to include their personal editorializing, personal POV, and personal debunking into articles, but it is just as true that NPOV and sourcing policies allow and require coverage of significant POV that are in V & RS. Our job is to document the facts and opinions found in V & RS, IOW we document all the documentable reality that exists, including opinions about that reality, as long as they are in V & RS. We follow the sources, and debunking is a very real activity in the real world, and our job includes documenting that part of reality by quoting the sources. We present it without taking sides, even though we obviously often take sides in reality and on the talk pages. We edit properly by documenting the real world, including the debunking found in it, and the activities of debunkers. -- Fyslee (talk) 05:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Very nice statement. I simply contend that editorial debunking has taken place on WP, by various means (attacks, position of information, weight, wording, statements etc.). —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 05:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring and disruption
3) ScienceApologist has edit-warred repeatedly and disrupted Wikipedia.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Just for an example, over 30 articles locked —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 22:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Of course, but the bigger question might be why does SA repeatedly edit war and disrupt. Discounting personality,why has Wikipedia not just allowed but supported this behaviour. Possibly some ideology is at work here, in which case dealing with a single editor but not the environment that has  supported and helped create the editor is only a "band aid", and possibly unfair solution. Both ideology and editor have to be understood and dealt with(olive (talk) 03:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC))
 * If this type of behavior is allowed, our policies should be changed to reflect it. If personal attacks are allowed, let's say so. If you can become exempt from WP:CIVIL just by saying you have your own unique notion of what constitutes civility, let's amend the policy to say so.  It doesn't make sense to have policies that aren't applied evenly.  It's not like SA comes with a warning message to other editors.  When interacting with him for the first time, editors have the expectation that he is bound by the same rules as everyone else. Many rude awakenings and disillusionments follow. This can't be good for the project. Dlabtot (talk) 03:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's basically what I've been trying to say, Littleolive oil and Dlabtot- though I've been focusing on the NPOV policy, which should be changed to accommodate debunking if that's what we're going to actually do. —— Martinphi    Ψ~Φ —— 03:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

4) ScienceApologist has been the beneficiary of a double standard. He has been allowed to violate rules to an extent which would never have been tolerated from any other editor (besides maybe Giano). —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 03:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed, obvious. —— Martinphi    Ψ~Φ —— 03:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

5) Wikipedia has formed the habit of allowing bad behavior from editors based on the magnitude of their support among other editors.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. —— Martinphi    Ψ~Φ —— 03:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Careful attribution necessary in fringe articles
1) Sources which promote a particular point of view, may represent notable points of view in Wikipedia per WP:WEIGHT. However, care should be taken to properly attribute such sources, and preference should be given to descriptions in sources which meet the Wikipedia policy on reliable sources.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed as standard NPOV practice, at least, and per WP:CONTROVERSY. The attribution bit is commonly violated.  Other proposals take sides in the debates. —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 04:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * First off, this is part of Martinphi's long-standing campaign to remove the "Particular attribution" section from WP:FRINGE. His proposals have been rejected by the community repeatedly.
 * First off, this is part of Martinphi's long-standing campaign to remove the "Particular attribution" section from WP:FRINGE. His proposals have been rejected by the community repeatedly.


 * Secondly, this is how Martinphi uses attribution: . By attributing views to a tiny, fringe organisation with a name that "sounds good", he manages to make a tiny fringe scientific view sound much more respected than it is, and in other places has named individual critics in order to make majority views seem to come from only a single person. Discussion of his behaviour is in, Talk:Psychic/Archive_5, which includes him claiming that the position paper of an organisation set up to promote fringe views is more relevant than a report by the National Academy of Sciences. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 07:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Martinphi has a history of abusing findings to force things well beyond what the Arbcom intends. Here, for instance, he claims that the Arbcom insists that Parapsychology must be treated as a science, and that it should be considered the mainstream view, while attacking by name several policies which go against his desire to present psychics as real. I gave another examples from the Paranormal case above. Hence, I would encourage the Arbcom to take care with these findings of facts, as they are created by a person who has a history of abusing such findings to his own ends. I think that is relevant, and must be said, or we'll just end up with another request for clarification down the line, after massive disruption has taken place. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 07:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This again as noted above are personal opinions and comments about an editor, that if accepted or believed discredit an editor and his comments and as such should be left out of the discussion. Please, lets leave this kind of thing out of these discussions please.(olive (talk) 21:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC))

1.1) Reliable sources are mandated on Wikipedia. Promotional web-sites or documents, and web-sites or documents created or maintained by involved parties should not be accepted.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed- stricter version of seicer's proposal. I wish this could pass. —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 04:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Hell no. Martin would just use this not just to remove Quackwatch, but to remove every skeptical site out there. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 07:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * So you admit that lousy sources are being used.
 * No. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 01:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm extremely wary of how this innocuous-sounding proposal will be put to use. The American Cancer Society, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, and M. D. Anderson Cancer Center all provide excellent scientific reviews of alternative cancer treatments. Are they "involved parties" because they treat patients with cancer using "conventional" (tested, proven, effective) therapies? I can guarantee that someone will make such an argument within minutes of such a principle being ratified. On medical articles, we already have serious problems - when respectable, reputable sources are cited to discuss unproven treatments, some editor can be counted on to say: "Well, of course the American Cancer Society disparages snake oil - it's a threat to their revenue stream." (, for example). MastCell Talk 04:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, the mean the way they said that the AMA wasn't a good source over at Homeopathy when it didn't condemn homeopathy hard enough?? —— Martinphi    Ψ~Φ —— 04:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And you forget it's linked to COI, which defines involved party. Still, I'll take that part out if you'll support it. —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 04:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, WP:COI says that "There are no firm criteria to determine whether a conflict of interest exists," which doesn't exactly translate into immunity against wikilawyering. Basically, I don't think this is necessary - we already mandate the use of reliable sources, and disputes about specific gray-area sources are best handled on a case-by-case basis. I see potential for harm here, and not much benefit to our articles. MastCell Talk 05:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Too strong "should not be accepted" is too strong, and a potential ticket to wikilawyering disaster, per MastCell. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 21:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A boon for anti-vaccination proponents. The Center for Disease Controlis not a reliable source because it could be receiving money from the pharmaceutical industry and could be biased in favor of protecting vaccine manufacturers --Enric Naval (talk) 04:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The relative weight of sources
2) The weight given to a source is relative to the subject under discussion. Subject to editorial judgment and consensus, a source which is appropriate for an article on a fringe subject may be excluded from an article on a mainstream topic.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * WP:RS already makes this distinction: "Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process". This is important: it often occurs that a source which fully meets the requirements of RS, is excluded from a fringe article because it isn't mainstream.  Similarly, the same RS source may be inappropriately inserted in a mainstream article. —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 04:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Special attention to attribution
3) Attribution is especially important in articles on fringe topics, where nearly every point is disputed.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. This is often ignored or actively fought against in order to push a particular POV. See also WP:CONTROVERSY. —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 04:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * See above. Martin abuses attribution badly. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 07:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That link of yours is a great edit. —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 05:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Scholarly sources
4)For information about academic topics, such as physics or ancient history, scholarly sources are preferred over news stories. Newspapers tend to misrepresent results, leaving out crucial details and reporting discoveries out of context.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Quoted from RS. —— Martinphi    Ψ~Φ —— 04:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Sourcing an scientific consensus
5) The scientific consensus on any given topic may be derived from explicit statements by the relevant academic community.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Standard but ignored —— Martinphi    Ψ~Φ —— 04:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * According to Martinphi, the relevant community is the proponents of the fringe subject: . Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 07:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You have to choose between expert and non-expert opinion. As clarified by FT2 and others when (was it you) asked for clarification on the Paranormal ArbCom, people who deny that parapsychology is science are POV pushing.  However, those who wish to exclude the opinions of skeptics and any mainstream sources are also POV pushing.  Yes, if you are studying psi, parapsychologists are the tiny bit of the scientific community which has studied it, and their consensus is relevant.  Also relevant is the fact,  that the rest of the scientific community has not accepted these results.  Also relevant is the fact that the skeptical community has rejected these results.  I stand by what I did in that diff, it is a completely proper use of attribution. —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 03:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That is completely misleading about what FT2 and other arbitrators actually said. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You're wrong, and anyone who thinks you're right should talk to FT2. —— Martinphi    Ψ~Φ —— 23:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

General statements require reliable sources
6) The statement that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view requires a reliable source. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Standard (and quoted) but badly ignored. As ScienceApologist says "Simple statements of fact such as “there is no scientific evidence for this belief” are challenged through reinterpretations of various Wikipedia policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and ironically, as of late, WP:NOR." Yup. Ever seen a scientific journal state that "there is no evidence for this belief?"  No, you probably haven't, because that's not scientific, it's pseudoscience.  Rather, they point to their results and say "no evidence was found." Rather state that the belief is not accepted within [relevant academic community]. Of course there is the occasional exception, like when Nature said one should burn Sheldrake's book for the same reason the Inquisition burned books, because it was heresy. —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 04:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Hmmm. If no reputable scientist comes out in favor of, say, water memory, but no one comments on the fact, what can we say?  We should say something.... — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Source of the scientific consensus
7)Science is not monolithic, but divided into fields of specialty. The scientific consensus is not the opinion of all scientists, but the opinion of specialists in a particular field.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Obvious but ignored in favor of statements of what "scientists" believe. —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 04:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * "Scientific consensus" is a well-defined term, but as said above, [Martin believes that scientific consensus should favour fringe scientists over that of mainstream when talking about fringe science. [[User:Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday|Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday]] (talk) 07:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, that's not how it works. For many fields, the consensus of scientists in that field is considered to be the scientific consensus because other scientists, and the educated public in general, respect the views of those experts on those topics.  This doesn't necessarily apply in all cases, for example parapsychology. ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 02:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Administrative powers
8)Administrators on Wikipedia are not empowered to rule on content policies. to use their tools to enforce content policies.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * This has become an extremely major issue. Several admins are proposing to enforce content policies by use of admin tools. MastCell, Jehochman, and Short Brigade Harvester Boris (who still has an admin account). Please do something about this. —— Martinphi    Ψ~Φ —— 04:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Oppose ( updated and reaffirmed opposition below Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC) ) They most certainly are allowed to rule on any policy.  It is only the content itself that is verboten.  This case is about behaviour, about one user's purported lack of civility and the purported intractability of dealing with certain types of disruptive editing.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 21:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I changed it to be more clear. See what you think now. —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 23:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Update I cannot see how this changes my position. If it's is a policy that is being abused, then that is actionable.  If prepending "content" as a modifier really is intended to mean the content itself, then just say so: that would indeed be a different ball of wax.  But admins certainly can enforce any policy.  This isn't to say they always will; sometimes discussion on Talk can fix the issue.  But they can, and in some cases should.  Dlablot below shows bluntly but clearly how this proposal makes no sense.   Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Since when are they not? Of course more care should be taken before using tools to enforce them, but if administrators can't, and Arbcom can't, then who the hell is? Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 23:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "Enforcing content by use of admin tools" is a risky power to give any single editor ... and as I said above admins are editors with tools. Content is the providence of group decision making and consensus, and not of any single editor. Admis are empowered with many responsibilities. This isn't one of them. Giving an admin such power allows them to override any group decision on any article. Perish the thought.(olive (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC))
 * But, arguably, this finding would ban administrators from using their tools no matter how much discussion or consensus there was. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 00:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand your point. If there is discussion and consensus nothing else is needed to enter content into an article even contentious content, and a contentious article. Difficult decisions concerning content can be dealt with in a systematized way on Wikipedia, all group driven ... mediation and so on.(olive (talk) 00:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC))
 * If I may, perhaps the confusion comes about because the proposal states "content policies", whereas you are discussing "content" proper ("Enforcing content by use of admin tools" above). Of course these are different, and many things on the project make little sense if these are confused.  It appears to me you may have had the same issue with one of Boris's proposals as well.  Just trying to help :)  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't make any sense of this proposed finding. Of course, admins have to be able to use their tools to enforce content policies, otherwise there are effectively no content policies. Dlabtot (talk) 00:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles should not debunk
9)Wikipedia articles should not debunk or promote a fringe topic.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed as blitheringly obvious, but in extreme need of statement. —— Martinphi    Ψ~Φ —— 04:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * "Debunk" is a loaded term, and appears to be used as a synonym for "criticize". We can and should criticize a fringe subject, and not present non-science as science, where necessary we should make it clear that a scientific term is not used by proponents of a fringe subject in a way that any scientist would use it, e.g. Quantum mechanics. In this link, Martin complains that What the Bleep Do We Know?!, a movie strongly criticized in multiple reliable sources for misrepresenting science, uses those sources to discuss its claims. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 07:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As I've stated elsewhere using Searches for Noah's Ark as an example, it is inevitable, and a good thing, that we must confront popular prejudice and state clearly when all reliable sources tell us unequivocally that a popular belief is false. An article on this example subject that left the reader with the impression that the stories they had heard were substantiated would, by omission, be biased.   Not only may we debunk, sometimes the requirement of the neutral point of view leaves us with no choice.


 * On fringe science, if we leave the reader with an understanding of why the subject is on the fringe, we will have done our job of conveying the information about the subject in a neutral manner. We should do so by presenting the subject in a fair-minded but not oversympathetic manner, and by avoiding undue weight.  Necessarily there will be some proponents who, like Martin, think that's wrong.   --TS 07:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Why the gratuitous personal attack? Can you provide a diff in which Martin asserts that we should not be fair-minded, where he asserts that we should be oversympathetic, or where he says we should not avoid undue weight? To sum up, why are you engaging in an off-topic, and completely unsupported by evidence, personal attack? Dlabtot (talk) 07:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Dlabtot, how about this quote:
 * The section has been questioned in the past, and the bits you quote edit warred in. It was written, I believe, by a group who are advocates of WP:SPOV. It is a statement of SPOV, as it claims that the majority view is always the mainstream scientific view. On the other hand- OK. You're completely right. We're dealing here with a topic which comes under the purview of the science of parapsychology. The consensus of the parapsychological association therefore represents the majority. Note that this is not what I want. I want to deal with this in a fair way, but the only thing that is going to happen if we deal with this as purely a scientific topic, or push the majority scientific view, is that the scientific discipline which is relevant -parapsychology- is the majority view. You will have to make the argument that parapsychology is not a science. In this, you will be up against James Randi, the ArbCom, the AAAS, and others. As I said, the FAQ is dreadfully flawed: it should make plain that it is dealing with pseudoscience in articles on mainstream topics. Otherwise, it either advocates SPOV by making mainstream science ipso facto the majority in all fringe articles, or else at least in this case it makes parapsychology the majority. Such is not a desirable outcome for Wikipedia, and so I advise that the FAQ be changed. I tried to change it, but certain people think that SPOV should be the way of Wikipedia. It is also, you may note, against the recent clarification which the Arbitrators gave us on the Paranormal ArbCom, where they noted that all the said views are to be presented in a cool and impartial way. Policy which is against policy, edit-warred into a seldom-noticed FAQ, does not work. We could take this case to mediation/ArbCom, if you wish, for it is a major issue. But in the end, we will not come out with making mainstream science ipso facto a majority. Is that what you want to push here? —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ —— 04:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * From . The FAQ he mentions is WP:NPOV/FAQ, and the section he objects to, WP:NPOV/FAQ, is as old as WP:NPOV, which the FAQ was split from a couple years later. Q.E.D. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 07:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Shoemaker's Holiday. I think it's clear now that Martin is even uncomfortable with something as innocuous as the statement that claims of psychic phenomena are rejected by the scientific community.  This is what I meant.  No version of psychic would be complete if it did not make that statement, but Martin does not want it to be there and argues for the position that those committed to this dubious field of investigation should be regarded as the fount of scientific consensus on the matter.  It's obvious that we cannot write a neutral article that so blatantly misrepresents the scientific consensus. --TS 08:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Let me be really clear on this: as we brought out in the Paranormal ArbCom, the claims of parapsychology are not rejected by the scientific community in general. The nearest they ever got to that was in the late 80s, where they said they found no evidence. Parapsychology's best results have come in since then, so the situation now is not clear. However, it is clear that parapsychological results are not accepted. Further, there are scientists who study psychic phenomena. Some of them call themselves parapsychologists. Some don't. You should read this, it is a clear statement of the layers of the debate:


 * 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, and popular culture concepts which have a following either in historical or contemporary popular culture, but are not taken seriously or investigated even by parapsychology. A fourth phenomenon is skeptical groups and individuals devoted to debunking.

also:


 * Parapsychology has an ambiguous status, engaging in scientific research, but strongly criticized for lack of rigor.

To say that the general consensus of parapsychologists cannot be cited in the Psychic article is POV pushing. To say that the conclusions, results, and writings of parapsychologists cannot be used in articles related to parapsychology is POV pushing. It is debunking. That has been confirmed by the ArbCom. If the ArbCom wants to change that, now is the time. If the ArbCom, on the other hand, as it recently stated, wants to stand by it, then it needs to say something to the effect that debunking is not acceptable.

FT2 said, as an example of how we might cover the issue:


 * Mainstream science tends to neither study, nor express interest in psychic matters. This is for various reasons based on professional culture, reputation, publication, falsifiability, conservatism, and past history of the field. A minor branch of science, known as "parapsychology", attempts to study psychic matters on a scientific basis, however the topic is generally treated as controversial and marginal by scientists outside its own field. Research outside the scientific world is usually not considered to meet the basis of formality needed to scientifically prove any given result, although some matters have been studied now and then, and skeptics ("debunkers") are often given credence in demonstrating the need for rigorous evidence-based testing.

I agree, this is a generally NPOV overview, though detail-poor. I ask the ArbCom to confirm that this is the NPOV way to go, and that debunking is against Wikipedia. —— Martinphi    Ψ~Φ —— 22:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, at the start of that very long comment you said "as we brought out in the Paranormal ArbCom, the claims of parapsychology are not rejected by the scientific community in general.", but you clearly admit that finding 3 describes parapsychology as "engaging in scientific research, but strongly criticized for lack of rigor." Better, our article on parapsychology states that:
 * The greater scientific community has not accepted that there exists evidence for psychic abilities. In 1988 the U.S. National Academy of Sciences produced a report that concluded that there is "no scientific justification from research conducted over a period of 130 years for the existence of parapsychological phenomena." Some science educators and scientists have called the subject pseudoscience. Psychologists such as Ray Hyman, Stanley Krippner, and James Alcock have criticized both the methods used and the results obtained in parapsychology, stating that methodological flaws may explain any apparent experimental successes.
 * I think the article speaks for itself. The consensus of Wikipedia editors, at present, is that  the scientific community "in general" rejects parapsychology. The wording of that section has not changed significantly for over two months and I see no ongoing discussion about the content of the lead section on the talk page during that period.


 * And you didn't just want to cite the opinions of parapsychologists in the article, you said: "We're dealing here with a topic which comes under the purview of the science of parapsychology. The consensus of the parapsychological association therefore represents the majority." You wanted the opinions of the parapsychologists to be taken as the consensus of scientists.  That is pov-pushing. --TS 00:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You make my case for me: the scientific community does not accept, while the Wikipedia community rejects. Big difference there. The scientific consensus is the consensus of experts in the field- like it or not, that's the definition.  It may also be stated that the scientific community outside of parapsychology does not accept the results of parapsychology.  FT2 understands these things: we present the information from the sources, and don't do OR by putting them together to form a specific conclusion.  Debunkers do not understand this.


 * Let me be specific about scientific consensus: the scientific community can reject a thing which is accepted by the scientific consensus. That may not make much sense to the common person, but if you are going to insist on using terms such as "scientific consensus" in the first place, you have to deal with it. —— Martinphi    Ψ~Φ —— 00:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you STILL trying to claim, after all the arbitratorrs told you it wasn't a content decision, it does not affect how articles should be written, etc, etc, that the Arbcom found in your favour in the Request for Clarification? [Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Paranormal#Request_for_clarification:_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FParanormal Here's a link to the request for clarification], in full, and not cherrypicked by Martin. Martin was even slapped down by FT2 over his attempts to spin the Request for Clarification in the clarification itself:

You stated "the Three layer cake with frosting finding is not merely a statement of what the parties believe. It is a statement of the 'objective situation' [...] Three layer cake with frosting is not intended to determine what content to put in an article [...] It is merely a statement of the objective situation which undergirds the process by which the actual content of articles are written."

If I understand you right, you're saying that you interpret it to be a description of the objective situation (that such views exist), and some detail how they inter-relate, what significance each has, and their foundations, and as an arbcom-stated description, that it should thus underpin how the article is written. If so (which I may have misunderstood) then you might have misinterpreted. It was intended to outline broad features of the background for those reviewing the dispute and interpreting the basis of the decision. It does not mean in any way that arbitrators exhaustively reviewed the topic and concluded as editors what due weight each view should be given, and should not be used for that purpose. I've explained more below. FT2 (Talk

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT at its finest. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 01:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Be civil. My claim is the following, which is correct because I asked the ArbCom to tell me if I was wrong:


 * "Current understanding:

The Paranormal ArbCom is meant to give guidance as to when editors are being disruptive or POV pushing. It sets some basic parameters which are not restrictive in terms of article intellectual content. But they do show when an editor is POV pushing or being disruptive.

Example:


 * "3) Parapsychology has an ambiguous status, engaging in scientific research, but strongly criticized for lack of rigor."

Thus, if an editor denies there is controversy surrounding parapsychology, or attempts to say that the issue of its status or results is decided, that editor is POV pushing. Similarly, if an editor tries to assert that a parapsychologist cannot be a scientist, or that parapsychology as a whole is nothing but pseudoscience, that editor is POV pushing.

Example:


 * "6.2) Language in the introduction of an article may serve to frame the subject thus defining the epistemological status. Examples include "mythical", "fictional", "a belief", and in the present case "paranormal", "psychic", "new age", "occult", "channeling", or "parapsychological researcher". "UFO", "Bigfoot", "Yeti", "alien abduction", and "crop circle" serve the same function. It should not be necessary in the case of an adequately framed article to add more, for example to describe Jeane Dixon as a psychic who appeared on TV says it all. "Purported psychic" or "self-described psychic" adds nothing."

If an editor of an article which adequately frames and presents differing prominent views in its text is nevertheless insisting that doubt needs to be cast on the subject through means similar to those described by the ArbCom, that editor is POV pushing. Just as, in the opposite case an editor is POV pushing who inserts "Jeane Dixon is known for her amazing psychic powers." —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 21:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC) " —— Martinphi    Ψ~Φ —— 01:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There is definitely a disconcerting amount of disagreement over the significance of past arbitration decisions, the meaning of words such as "accept", "reject", "debunk" and so on, and the application of the neutral point of view policy. I must confess I feel quite dizzy and do not envy the arbitrators their job. --TS 01:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed. By now everyone has made their entrenched positions abundantly clear. I am taking this page off my watch list for a while to reduce temptations for making further comments. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

An article written according to WP:NPOV - on whatever topic - may tend to debunk discredit that topic, or conversely, show that topic in a favorable light. (I will not use the term 'promote' or 'debunk'.) We let the facts speak for themselves. Dlabtot (talk) 00:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Putting aside the obviously loaded term "debunk"--if quality sources have criticized a subject, that criticism can be appropriately included within the article, space permitting. Enough said. &mdash; Scientizzle 02:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Debunking is not about sources, but about presentation of sources or original research. See definition below. —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 05:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've read your defintion...there you've made "debunking" only about anyone's particular perception of the intent of a source or claim included in an article. This ignores the obvious reality that someone, somewhere is bound to interpret any neutrally-worded, accurately-attributed claim as "promotion of disbelief or derision" for their particular opinion. It also hamstrings the intent of WP:NPOV--that varying and opposing points of view are to be presented in proper balance--by elevating a non-content concern (that is, a particular editor's perceived intensions) in comparison to our standard content-centered position. It's untenable in philosophy and practice. &mdash; Scientizzle 21:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Read the next one down from that definition, and perhaps you'll understand. —— Martinphi    Ψ~Φ —— 00:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Verifiability, not truth
10) The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Generally ignored amid cries that we have to tell the reader the truth about fringe topics. —— Martinphi    Ψ~Φ —— 02:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * WP:V is, of course, policy. The content issues present generally arise usually from ignoring another clause in WP:V: exceptional claims require high-quality sources. Many fringe topic claims rest on sources that are dubious or only superficially WP:RS-appropriate. Too often, POV-pushing editors never get past that first paragraph of policy. &mdash; Scientizzle 00:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Right, like the ones who like to put "scientists say." —— Martinphi    Ψ~Φ —— 04:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 *  &mdash; Scientizzle 21:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Mentorship
11) Having a mentor is sufficient excuse for anything. And everything, too.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed per WP:POINT —— Martinphi    Ψ~Φ —— 05:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Comment by Arbitrators:

Debunking defined for Wikipedia
12) Debunking may be recognized as an active promotion of disbelief or derision in Wikipedia articles. It is advocacy of a particular bias or point of view relative to fringe ideas.


 * Comment by parties:
 * This is the definition which has been missing from the debate, and it's lack gave rise to the whole "SPOV" thing. —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 04:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * This seems a bit slippery-slopey as worded. What does it mean to "actively promote disbelief"? If I write that every major medical body has rejected the abortion-breast cancer hypothesis, it could be argued that I'm "actively promoting disbelief" in that hypothesis. But from my perspective, I'm providing a key (sourced) indication of expert opinion in the field. MastCell Talk 19:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Once again, the dictionary says (paraphrased) to expose or remove bunk, not a bias against alleged bunk, which is what it has to mean if debunking is bad. At least "SPOV" doesn't promote confusing two meanings as being the same. If Martinphi et al get to redefine "debunking", can we redefine "handsome" to mean "Art LaPella"? Art LaPella (talk) 19:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A bias against bunk is necessitated by the neutral point of view. If we relaxed that bias our articles would fill up with rubbish. --TS 19:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that a bias against bunk is good, but I meant that a bias against alleged bunk – that is, closed-mindedness to new ideas that falsely presumes they are bunk, is what debunking has to mean if it is bad. Art LaPella (talk) 01:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral POV is neutral POV. If you edit according to this belief, you are a POV pusher.  Either get it into policy, or stop pushing it.  See finding below, it explains.  The above is about promotion in articles, not about presentation of sources. —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 00:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment There are (at least) two meanings this word can take. The meaning postulated here certainly is one of them, so on the face of it the statement is true.  In fact, this sense need not apply to just fringe ideas; any ideas can be debunked in this manner (although the prudence or effectiveness of such efforts might be debated).   But note the proposal says "may be recognized" (emph mine).  It may also be recognized as what Art points it out to be, which need not be advocacy at all, but a simple indirect but logical consequence ("necessitated" -TS) of NPOV and RS.  The former is inappropriate for any number of reasons.  The latter is actually desirable.


 * I suspect Martin might find much less resistance to his posts if he(?) were to acknowledge that difference both explicitly here and implicitly by making edits which clearly reflected awareness of that difference. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd like to echo MastCell, Tony, Art and Baccyak4H. Each well-stated. &mdash; Scientizzle 21:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * These are subtle points, so I'd like to cut the knot with an unsubtle example. Suppose a reliable source informs us that Senator X proposes to pass a motion in the Senate to the effect that pi shall have the value 3.14, which he says was a revelation  vouchsafed to him in a vision from God.  Assuming that weighting considerations require us to include that fact in a given article, we would nevertheless be failing in our duty as an encyclopedia if we did not communicate to the reader the context: that mathematicians are unanimous in their opinion that pi is a transcendental number whose value is distinct from 3.14.  In the process of communicating the significance of the Senator's vision, in other words, we would have to debunk it.


 * Does the fact that the Senator believes that pi has the value 3.14 mean that we could not state as a fact that it does not have that value? No it does not.   Just because somebody believes a falsehood, the neutral point of view does not require us to act as if the fact were in doubt.


 * Charles VI of France believed himself to be made of glass. We do not report that in such a manner as to leave the reader in doubt as to whether Charles was, in fact, made of glass, which would be implied by a naive reading of the neutral point of view. --TS 01:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No, we do not state it "as a fact" but we state what the sources have told us. If the thing has not been refuted, then it isn't going to be notable enough for inclusion.  We would say "X, of Y institution, writing in the journay Z, said it is not not true."  We cannot, under NPOV, just refute it as "untrue."  If you are going to take a bunk claim and just refute or deride it out of your general knowledge of the subject, you're violating quite a few rules.  TS, we don't state anything as a fact if it is controversial in the context. Period. —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 02:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The King of France was not made of glass. It doesn't matter if he believed he was. He was not.  His false belief does not make the fact of his construction from flesh and bone controversial, in or out of context.  He was not made of sponge, or ivory, or wood, or glass.  To state that he was not made of glass is a quite neutral statement.  We would be breaching our requirement of neutrality if we gave the false impression that the King of France might have been correct in his belief.  This is the limiting case that demonstrates that just piling up claims isn't enough.  Weight of evidence matters, and above a certain weight we state facts, which are opinions that are held universally by all qualified observers.  If tomorrow we discover that under certain circumstances bone can turn to glass, then the weight will have changed and we will re-evaluate the evidence and consider whether the King might have been right.  Until then, the conclusion is that he was deluded.  --TS 02:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Debunking is appropriate in Wikipedia articles
13) Skeptical and debunking points of view are often notable, especially relative to fringe subjects. They should be presented in proportion to their prominence.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. —— Martinphi    Ψ~Φ —— 00:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

I assume you mean skeptical and debunking points of view are often notable as sources, since debunking on Wikipedia itself would constitute POV editing.(olive (talk) 02:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC))

Policy decisions by government bodies about, for instance, the safety of chemicals should not be equalled with a scientific mainstream consensus

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Agree. You could stick to the standard format in your section... —— Martinphi    Ψ~Φ —— 04:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Decisions by government bodies that nominally are based on science are very often influenced by politics and the agendas of powerful special interest. Therefore they should be mentioned as a government decision but not be portrayed as a Scientific Decision or consensus. MaxPont (talk) 08:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see making this a general rule at all useful; true, there are times governments act against scientific advice, but we should ask that a conflict be shown before presuming corruption. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 09:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not what it says: it says, government pronouncement does not equal scientific consensus for the purpose of WP. —— Martinphi    Ψ~Φ —— 04:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, OK. So if the National Institutes of Health - a government body - says that HIV causes AIDS, then that's not evidence of a scientific consensus? If a panel of experts from the National Cancer Institute finds that abortion does not cause breast cancer, then that's not evidence of a scientific consensus? And this will make the encyclopedia better? At least MaxPont has helpfully phrased these proposals in a manner which makes clear that they are intended to help him personally with a handful of specific content disputes. MastCell Talk 07:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * MastCell, we either need it one way or the other. Those institutions might be fine for consensus sources.  But if we use them for one situation where if favors the view of debunkers, we should be able to use them for another, even if it isn't negative toward fringe.  And we can't, because as soon as they aren't negative enough toward fringe, guess what?  They are no longer "reliable sources."  Know what I mean?  Can't have it both ways.  —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 03:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What? When have I ever tried to have it both ways? If you ever see me dismissing the National Institutes of Health or NCI as reliable sources, then my account has been hijacked. MastCell Talk 06:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps unfairly, I was talking to you as a defender/member of the debunker group, who have done so. I never see you condemn such, but I see you condemn the fringe POV pushers a lot. —— Martinphi    Ψ~Φ —— 06:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I mentioned chemicals to make it clear that the intention is not that creationists should use this principle. Of course there are problems and exceptions with any stated principle. My intention with this proposal was not to target bodies such as the National Academy of Science or the NIH that have at least some distance from day to day policy. Rather, if a rule making government body declares that the maximum permitted level for Arsenic in drinking water X is safe, that pesticide Y is non- cancerogenous, that food additive Z is GRAS, that should NOT be equalled with the scientific consensus. That is all it says. MaxPont (talk) 09:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a content ruling, which ArbCom should avoid. The relationship between government body rulings and the collective academic findings regarding a particular topic should be made clear within relevant articles. Government bodies are generally considered high quality sources and should certainly be used when appropriate. There tends to be a fairly strong positive correlation between the scientific positions of modern government organizations and the best collective scientific evidence, thus such positions are important information for any reader and often (with some caveats) indicative of the course of scientific thought. &mdash; Scientizzle 00:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with the proposition: "Government bodies are generally considered high quality sources and should certainly be used when appropriate." Government bodies are by their nature, political. Dlabtot (talk) 01:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that because they are political they are not high quality sources or that because they are political we should not use them? L0b0t (talk) 01:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No and no. I'm only saying precisely what I said. The validity of particular sources for particular citations needs to be examined on a case by case basis. Dlabtot (talk) 01:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * ...which is entirely consistent with Government bodies are generally considered high quality sources and should certainly be used when appropriate." &mdash; Scientizzle 01:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, no. They should be used when appropriate, yes. A determination which should be made on a case by case basis.  Which is pretty much the opposite of making a blanket assertion that they are generally considered high quality sources. Dlabtot (talk) 02:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it wasn't clear, but "generally considered high quality sources" was meant in terms of WP:RS...you're under no obligation to believe such sources, but there's no denying that (in the US, for example) the NSF, NIH, DOE, CDC, NOAA, NASA... [alphabet soup ad nauseum ]...clearly meet what would be defined as "credible...with a reliable publication process...generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand" regarding topics under their purview. Naturally, editorial discretion will determine whether any such material is appropriate to any particular article. Any other nits worth picking? &mdash; Scientizzle 03:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's perfectly clear, and I think it's wrong. As I've already said, and for the reason I've already given. Here is a well-known example of the problem: . Now, if you insist on having the last word, go for it. Dlabtot (talk) 04:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The existence of political controversies should not be suppressed by claiming that one political position is unsupported by scientific consensus

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * I fear that any ruling on favour of a “WP:Mainstream” or a harder ruling against Fringe views will be used by pro-industry POV-pushers to suppress legitimate minority POVs. MaxPont (talk) 08:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but this is a very bad idea: try putting a major controversy into it, say, creationism vs. evolution, or global warming. Presenting the facts requires explaining that one side is better or solely supported by the scientific evidence, and how much so. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 09:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't want creationists to use this principle. Rather, to prevent e.g. pro-environmental POVs with some scientific support from being suppressed/deleted. MaxPont (talk) 09:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps your point just isn't very clear. Can you try revising it and clarifying? Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 10:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This is the "Teach the Controversy" tactic. If the science is against you, keep going but yell censorship when someone ignores you.  --TS 00:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I can see how this proposed principle would make MaxPont's life easier, but not how it will make the encyclopedia better. MastCell Talk 05:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a terrible idea. If a controversy (or a "controversy") exists in reliable sources, thus warranting encyclopedic coverage, it should be covered appropriately. Appropriate coverage would necessitate an explanation of how and why scientific consensus positions may (dis)agree with claims used in the support or opposition of viewpoints within said political controversies. &mdash; Scientizzle 00:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not have a pro-industry right-wing bias

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * This is glaringly obvious but it seems that it needs to be spelled out. MaxPont (talk) 08:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that simply nominating an article for deletion is, in itself, a problem: Some subjects have far more articles than editors able to maintain them, so picking off the non-notable or barely-notable articles can be a viable way of making the subject more manageable, and does not, in itself, show that the nominator is opposed to the subjects appearing on Wikipedia in a more appropriate article. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 09:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Needless. Wikipedia shouldn't have a pro-libertarian anti-monarchist quasi-unitarian proto-anarchist sub-urban pacifist POV, either. I think there's a policy that covers this without needing to single out anyone's particular bogeyman. &mdash; Scientizzle 00:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If Wikipedia having a right-wing bias is your biggest fear, I think you can sleep soundly. --B (talk) 13:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

ScienceAplogist is highly disruptive editor that has shown arrogance, contempt for the Wikipedia community, and consistently shown unwillingness to reform

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Other editors can manage to curb Fringe views without endless controversies. There are no more excuses left. Disruptions like these just can’t be explained away. MaxPont (talk) 08:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You link evidence which you presented about 3 weeks ago in another ArbCom case. It was not acted on then, despite equally overheated rhetoric. Can you explain what's different this time around? Otherwise, one might almost get the impression that you regard these ArbCom cases simply as sequential platforms from which to revile an opponent. MastCell Talk 05:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a newly elected ArbCom and they are not bound by previous rulings. MaxPont (talk) 09:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

ScienceAplogist should be permanently banned from Wikipedia

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Not at long as there is a willing mentor and signs of progress. Jehochman Talk 21:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We have one willing administrator who can act as a mentor for SA, so I'm not for sure this is necessary at this point. seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  22:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with Jehochman and Seicer that SA should not be banned. All anyone needs to avoid the ax is a nice neck warmer fuzzy admin mentor.  I'll remember this, and recommend it next time I see someone like Pcarbonn on the block. —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 04:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed above but withdrawn. I will propose that instead. Any other editor with this track record would have been banned a long time ago. If the community doesn’t ban ScienceApologist it is more or less official that all the elaborate WP policies and guidelines are nothing but a charade and that the guys with friends in the right places have immunity and can break every WP rule there is with no consequences. No more Dirty Harry on Wikipedia. MaxPont (talk) 08:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Question: I thought this was about things in general that need attention?  The request to ban/block SA I also thought was handled in the Cold Fusion case.  Why is this still being requested?  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  17:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Answer: This is a newly elected ArbCom and they are not bound by previous rulings. The RFA that lead up to this ArbCom mostly centered around the disruptions by ScienceAplogist.MaxPont (talk) 08:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * ScienceApologist has been given the chance to reform by mentorship before. It failed and the mentors gave up . If he is allowed to get away from this ArbCom, as soon as this ArbCom is closed, it seems that there is nothing to prevent him from giving the finger to the mentors. After a potential “non-ban ruling” by this ArbCom, such a non-decision can be used as an argument that his behaviour has been tried by the ArbCom and found to be acceptable. Enough is enough. MaxPont (talk) 08:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well your first dif from Jehochman happened way after the mentoring stopped. Also I believe the mentoring failed do to problems that occurred with the mentors & SA being able to communicate in a timely manner, Jehochman please correct me if I am wrong.  But even so, the arbitrators ruled on this previously and even with new ones coming in I don't think it's a wise choice to try and retry to ban him since he is now being mentored by Durova herself and she seems to be staying on top of things.  I know you don't like SA but you are pushing too hard on something that has already had a decision made.  Of course this is just my opinion on the matter but why not give the new mentor a chance and see what happens?  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  15:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, no, ArbCom didn't rule on this matter previously, rather, they declined to rule. Not at all the same thing. I'm not sure what evidence you are going by when you assert that Durova "seems to be staying on top of things". Perhaps you could share it with us. Dlabtot (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have asked Durova to comment on this matter herself. -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  18:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, I've been asked to comment here. On principle I've never treated mentorship as a get-out-of-consequences-free card: mentorship exists to help an editor adapt to Wikipedia, not vice versa.  Events are moving quickly onsite with SA and there's a lot of information to get up to speed on (my editing interests and SA's haven't overlapped much).  Basically I'm aiming to improve communication and lower tension.  Despite being the wiki witch, I can't exactly pull a potion out of my cauldron and make all the problems go away instantly.  So don't expect miracles, although now and then a flying monkey might appear to pass out banana milkshakes.  Durova  Charge! 09:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe that Durova is overly optimistic about her chances of success. The ArbCom is not even closed and the mentor has problems with ScienceApologist . What will happen when the Arbcom is closed and (if) ScienceAplogist is let off the hook? IMO, it is naive to believe that mentorship will work. MaxPont (talk) 09:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This is your interpretation. Please read what Durova has written here and in the diff you cite as evidence. There she wrote, "Rome wasn't built in a day". Please try to be patient and assume good faith. Mathsci (talk) 14:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Durova for your quick reply. I just saw your reply to me and was going to pass your message on.   I agree with Mathsci, please wait and assume good faith.  As Durova stated to me, her internet was down and different time zones also makes a difference for her to be able to catch up with comments for her.  Please, lets allow her the time to catch up and try to work with SA.  I think this is the fair thing to do.  I still have hopes that Durova will be able to bring more light than heat to all of this.  Thanks for listening, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  14:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If this is formally proposed it should be ammended to "one year" per prior practice. While I wish Durova the best of luck, I do not expect that anything but a long ban to chage SA's behavior.  I encourage ArbCom to look closely at the matter and consider such a ban.  Enen though SA is addressing a real problem, his uneccessarily combative style creates a hostile editing environment that, IMO, is more trouble than it's worth.  Eluchil404 (talk) 18:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by User:Feline1. I have spent less time editing on wikipedia in 2008 and had less "run ins" with Science Apologist, but from what I have seen, if anything, his general incivility and confrontational attitude towards editing seems to me to be not only worse than ever, but he appears to actively revel and gloat in it. The bottom line is that his behaviour causes rancour and gnashing of teeth and discourages people from participating. I remain mildly amazed that he has been allowed to remain an editor.--feline1 (talk) 12:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia attracts proponents of fringe theories
1) The open nature of Wikipedia – the encyclopedia that anyone can edit – makes it an attractive target for proponents and adherents of fringe theories, who, by making edits to articles related to their pet theory, aim to give it increased visibility, lend it credibility by virtue of Wikipedia's authority, and generally boost its respectability (if there is a Wikipedia article on it, it must be notable and important).


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. --Lambiam 21:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Mathsci (talk) 01:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia attracts every kind of person /editor. A relatively astonishing opinion and that's all.(olive (talk) 02:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC))


 * Support. It's obvious to any objective observer that Wikipedia has become the platform of choice for fringe theories of all kinds, not just pseudoscience-related; it needs to be recognized as a central problem the project needs to confront and find a way to deal with.Woonpton (talk) 06:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree in spirit with this, but some clarification might be useful. This impression, as ducklike as it is, is for the most part just that, an impression.  This should probably be pointed out with words to the effect that while it can't always be proven, the risk is obvious and should be minimized.  Recognisance of proven cases (e.g., cold fusion / Pcarbonn) would be beneficial.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Just for the year 2005, and restricted to the topic of creationism/intelligent design, I see the following on VfD/AfD: Views of Creationists and mainstream scientists compared*, Creation geology*, Creation anthropology*, Evolution poll*, Terms used in the creation-evolution debate*, Creation-evolution poll*, Aspects of evolution*, Unguided evolution*, Relationship between evolution and divine guidance*, Evolutionary materialism*, Religious views of evolution*, Gallup poll on creationism and evolution*, Intelligent Design and Creationism, Aspects of evolution*, and Can evolution be guided by God?*. I may have missed some. The blue links are redirects as a result of the AfD process. The articles marked with an asterisk were nominated by SA.  --Lambiam 12:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Edits by proponents of fringe theories may threaten the encyclopedic character of Wikipedia
2) Edits by proponents of fringe theories may introduce non-notable theories, overemphasize fringe viewpoints and underemphasize mainstream scientific viewpoints, misrepresent the scientific credibility or reliability of sources, downplay mainstream criticism, and many other forms. This threatens the encyclopedic character of Wikipedia and must be counteracted vigorously and with determination.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. --Lambiam 21:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

ScienceApologist is a defender of the encyclopedic character of Wikipedia
3) User ScienceApologist is a vigorous and determined defender of the encyclopedic character of Wikipedia.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Depends on who you ask. He has a lot of friends, but somehow when he comes across actual scientists, they end up calling him a fundamentalist. —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 02:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. --Lambiam 21:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Agree in spirit but as written sounds too much like an introduction to the presentation of some award. I, for one scientist, would not call SA a fundamentalist, although others certainly might. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've not really formed an opinion on ScienceApologist's editing, but I would not want to hold anyone out--much less someone whose conduct attracts legitimate concern--as a defender of the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia. I'm rather skeptical of the notion that having "wiki defenders" is at all a good idea.  We should all be doing our level best to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia, and we shouldn't treat Wikipedia as a battleground. --TS 15:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose MaxPont (talk) 08:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Would give too much weight to one editor's views. In reply to Martinphi:  I'm a scientist, and I don't tend to apply labels such as "fundamentalist" to individuals unless they've chosen those labels to describe themselves.  As David Burns points out, labels tend to be at best overgeneralizations (stereotypes). ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 01:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. I didn't make a judgment on whether they should in practice have applied that label.  Just that they felt justified in doing so, and continue to feel that way. —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 03:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies may be misused by POV pushers of fringe theories
4) While the Wikipedia policies regarding content – notably Verifiability and Reliable sources – are powerful weapons against the POV pushing of fringe theories, Wikipedia policies are also used by such POV pushers in order to hamper counteracting the POV editing – notably frustrating the reaching of consensus, and the levelling of overblown accusations of POV editing and other accusations of transgression of Wikipedia policy against defenders of the encyclopedic character of Wikipedia.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. --Lambiam 21:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Mathsci (talk) 01:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Though it might be a tad specific, that is, one could just say Wikipedia policies may be misused by POV pushers and leave it at that. L0b0t (talk) 03:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The terms "debunking" and "pseudoskepticism" are best avoided
5) Debunking and pseudoskepticism are words that are often used in a derogatory sense by proponents of fringe theories in their frustration by what they perceive as the closed-mindedness of the scientific establishment in rejecting or ignoring their pet beliefs. In a rational discussion of Wikipedia policy and practice regarding fringe science, the use of these loaded terms is best avoided.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. --Lambiam 21:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Mathsci (talk) 01:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. Woonpton (talk) 06:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Too prescriptive. Use of these terms by an editor can often act as a marker for overt advocacy that might otherwise be denied, and if you proscribe terms then substitutes will appear so you don't achieve anything by this. --TS 21:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The use of these labels is about as informative as deletionist; it signals little more than "I don't agree with you and think you are full of it". While I would not go as far as proscribing these terms, their use does not contribute to the level of the discourse. The terms are being bandied on this page and other auxiliary pages, and I'd hate to see that carried over to /Proposed decision. --Lambiam 12:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the value of civility in the debate
6) Civility is valuable in discourse aiming at reaching consensus, but has limited value when discussants are actually aiming at avoiding consensus being reached.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Oppose. Like, if you think the other guy doesn't want consensus, then you can blow him out of the water.  Good policy. That's exactly what SA does, when the other guy doesn't believe the same as SA then it's an "obvious exceptions to consensus policy," . —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 02:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. --Lambiam 21:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose I would argue civility has more value when dealing with those attempting to avoid consensus (or for that matter, practically every other form of behavior counter to writing a good encyclopedia). This reduces one's own risk of action being taken against oneself, as well as giving more credibility to one's arguments.  I suspect Lambiam means something more like "civility by itself is not sufficient to handle the problem where discussants are actually aiming at avoiding consensus being reached"; I could support that, but will leave it for them to clarify.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * When adherents of a fringe theory are willing to aim at and respect consensus, civility in dealing with them clearly furthers the aims of the project. But in dealing with POV-pushers who actually strive to frustrate the consensus process because it does not make the article come out as they want it to be, civility has not proven to be particularly helpful in getting somewhere. The only effective way of dealing with such editors is a ban. I'm not saying this is a licence to be uncivil, as even moderate incivility will immediately be seized to create a distraction, but only that there is a limit to the effectiveness of civility here. --Lambiam 15:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I stand by my position as the proposal as written, but I can agree with this clarification, as it is indeed essentially what I said I thought you were getting at. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding accusations of incivility
7) In a conflict involving accusations of incivility, one has to consider to what extent such accusations are justified or possibly overblown in the context of the conflict.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. --Lambiam 21:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong support Context is everything. Using such judgment is one, of many, things that go without saying that sometimes need to be said. L0b0t (talk) 00:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Exceptional claims
1) On Wikipedia, sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require high-quality sources.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Agree. For example, the exceptional claim that "scientists" believe such-and-such. —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 02:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And especially for claims like "most scientists are wrong about such-and-such". &mdash; Scientizzle 02:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Right. Not that I've even once seen such a claim made, though the one I cited is common. —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 02:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Such a claim is usually made in more subtle ways. One need only spend a few days editing articles on climate change, HIV-AIDS denial, food additive or vaccine saftey, CAM, etc., in which the authoritative claims of major research organizations and extensive scientific reviews are "countered" by cherry-picked sources of a generally-more-dubious nature. It is this weight concern that is far more prevalent, and fits the idea of a "most scientists are wrong about such-and-such" edit: ideas that challenge the general scientific consensus of a field--and the sources from which they're pulled--have variable scientific validity, and to leave that validity unexamined is counter to the goals of this encyclopedia as I understand them. &mdash; Scientizzle 03:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right. Such bad use of sourcing is rampant, from fringe, and from anti-fringe as well.  I have been advocating in-text attribution to help the reader to know the context.  You can't just exclude the sources, since they are ligit under the rules, but you can help frame them by noting the general relative status of the idea to begin with, and by giving in-text ATT. See also the Paranormal ArbCom on Framing, and the current finding on the need for noting relative status, which I practically wrote (or I think I wrote it, at any rate I was blamed for it) "When a clear consensus, referenced by reliable sources indicates that a particular view is a minority or majority view relative to the article's subject or to the general context of the material, it is appropriate to indicate this in the text of the article. Viewpoints can be contextualized relative to their acceptance in various communities sources indicate are relevant." . —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 03:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. As indicated above, I believe this important point is often overlooked when people quote WP:V (or other Wikipedia policy) at each other. &mdash; Scientizzle 01:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support both statements obviously. The pseudobickering above about believing in or being in error about such-and-such is absurd, as the exceptionalness of said claims depends acutely on exactly what such-and-such is. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * So, you've got an anti-such-and-such bias, I see...Figures. &mdash; Scientizzle 20:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Even though the such-and-such paradigm was supplanted by this-and-that ages ago so your refutation is moot Scientizzle. ;) L0b0t (talk) 23:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Scientific Fundamentalism and Pseudoskepticism POV pushing shouldn't be tolerated
1) Scientific Fundamentalism and Pseudoskepticism each represent an extremist point of view not necessarily aligned with mainstream thought and the push of these POVs should no more be tolerated than the push of the Fringe POV. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Some of the editors below are correct that the terms need specific definitions. Martinphi


 * Comment by others:


 * What exactly do the terms Scientific Fundamentalism and Pseudoskepticism mean in the context of editing articles on fringe science or pseudoscience? Like "debunking" these seem to be emotive terms, applicable to individual editors rather than their arguments. They could be used by "push[ers] of the Fringe POV" to draw out discussions endlessly. Mathsci (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Frankly, anyone making these kinds of arguments ought to be blocked from editing. Scientific Fundamentalism? Pseudoskepticism? Those are just scare terms made up by people with an extreme anti-science agenda. DreamGuy (talk) 20:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * During this ArbCom I have claimed that there exist aggressive pro-establishment POV-pushers with an agenda to create a "Mainstream" encyclopedia where legitimate minority opinions are supressed. Others have insinuated that such POV-pushing doen't exists. IMO, this is an example of that. MaxPont (talk) 08:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If tht's your idea of an example of suppressing legitimate minority opinions, then you aren't supporting your argument very well. DreamGuy (talk) 19:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This is an attempt to manufacture a controversy by mischaracterizing scientific objections to fringe science. There is a significant minority of scientific opinion that is persuaded by evidence for cold fusion, but the scientific consensus is that it is not proven and that no plausible mechanism has been provided to support claims that it has occurred. Scientific skepticism can be overcome by the accumulation of evidence. --TS 14:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As sharply discerned by others, this is a proposal from one who (believe it or not!) claims to be a skeptic, but whose edit history and comments on talk pages show they are pseudoskeptics as described by Carroll: Commenting on the labels "dogmatic" and "pathological" that the "Association for Skeptical Investigation" puts on critics of paranormal investigations, Robert Todd Carroll of the Skeptic's Dictionary argues that that association "is a group of pseudo-skeptical paranormal investigators and supporters who do not appreciate criticism of paranormal studies by truly genuine skeptics and critical thinkers. The only skepticism this group promotes is skepticism of critics and [their] criticisms of paranormal studies." This proposal is just an example of a misappropriation of the term based on a misunderstanding of many things, and applies to far more than the paranormal, but also to belief in many aspects of alternative medicine, in this case chiropractic (with its pseudoscientific foundation of vertebral subluxation). This proposal smacks of a WP:POINT violation, but made in good faith, since this user really believes this stuff. While this proposal doesn't belong here, it can serve as an opportunity for others to set the record straight, which is already being done. Nice to see such good company here! -- Fyslee (talk) 06:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:DNFTT. Skinwalker (talk) 23:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Skinwalker, your behavior is unbecoming an admin, especially posts like this, and the current one above. We all know you have a heavy POV, but don't attack people. —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 00:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Good thing he's not an admin, then... :P MastCell Talk 00:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "If nominated, I will not stand; if elected, I will not serve." Perhaps you haven't seen my userbox, Mr. Phi.  Skinwalker (talk) 00:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Gentleman please return to your corners and come out dealing with the points made by the editor posting rather than the attacking the editor himself.Ding.(olive (talk) 01:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC))
 * Well, making mistakes today. I'm not the only one who thought you were.  But perhaps the other got it from me. —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 03:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I encourage all of you to always keep an open mind. Please understand that I am not saying that science is a point of view. It is not a POV. Rather I am referring to Scientific Fundamentalism, which is the belief that the world is accessible to and ultimately controllable by human reason. This is a profoundly unscientific idea. It is neither provable nor refutable. I quote from an essay published a few years back in the New Scientist, "Scientific fundamentalism deludes us with dreams of competence; it expects too much of this world, just as religious fundamentalism expects too much of the next." All I am trying to say here is that there is the neutrality of science and then there is POV of hardline scientific extremists. We need to look out for the pushing of this POV just as much as from the Fringe. I understand the reaction from several of the editors above. They don't like the idea that they can be classified as a fundamentalist or as a pseudoskeptic. But I ask them to realize that just the same, other editors don't like to be called quacks or fringe POV pushers. I, myslef, try to edit from a dispassionate neutral perspective. I am certainly not perfect as it, but I do my best to keep my POV compass pointing towards neutrality. And yet, because this direction is not always aligned with that of the scientific fundamentalists, they lash out and call me a pseudoscience supporter. Why? Because I think that it is okay for an encyclopedia article on a certain specimen of plants to mention that it is widely used in the preparation of a homeopathic remedies. I am not trying to insert text which says that it is an effective remedy; sometimes just the opposite. Personally, I think that an encyclopedia which is attempting to be the sum of all human knowledge should include this homeopathic information. Why? Because it is part of human knowledge. Without judgment of homeopaty (and by the way I think it is bunk), I wholeheartedly support the inclusion of such information. And because of that, I have been called a pseudoscientist, a fringe POV supporter, a quack, and a lot worse. But I ask you, "Who is really the fundamentalist, POV pusher here? The person adding well-sourced information into an article without passion or prejudice or the person wishing to exclude the information because they personally think it is quackery?" -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 03:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you Levine, and important for all of us to hear. Rather than insulting it places us in perspective of a larger paradigm which can only help all of us towards more neutral editing. We all sit in particular positions in terms of how we view knowledge. We just have to know what that position is and in knowing can become more neutral. Knowledge is power.(olive (talk) 06:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC))


 * Insofar as "scientific fundamentalism" has been characterized by Levine2112 as "the belief that the world is accessible to and ultimately controllable by human reason", Wikipedia is committed to "scientific fundamentalism". Our articles aren't written by ghosts, nor do they contain revealed wisdom.  We do not cite conjunctions of the heavens or configurations of yarrow stalks, or any other kind of divination as reliable sources.  We do not consult oracles.  We do no pray for guidance.  To the extent that Levine112 has defined "scientific fundamentalism", we are all scientific fundamentalists and we will repel forcefully any attempts to insert superstitious nonsense into Wikipedia.  To the extent that Levine112 describes those who adopt this approach as "scientific extremists", all wikipedians are "scientific extremists".  --TS 10:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As an academic I have never heard the phrase "scientific fundamentalism". Levine2112 seems to be voicing his own highly personalized view of the world. Please could he stop soapboxing on this workshop page? Mathsci (talk) 11:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have heard of the term "Scientific fundamentalism" used in several arenas of academia. Perhaps I wasn't clear on this, but the opinions I was expressing above were largely referencing the New Scientist article written by science journalist and author Bryan Appleyard. You can actually read the full-text here: . It's a nice read, regardless of your opinion on the matter. Anyhow, if you do a Google search for "Scientific Fundamentalism" and specifically a Google Scholar search, you will see that it is a term used in many academic circles. It is not my invention here. I don't think that you could possibly know my "own highly personalized view of the world", so I would appreciate it if you didn't make any assumptions or accusations. But in terms of Wikipedia, I truly feel that "scientific fundamentalism" is a POV just as problematic as the Fringe POV. That's all I am asking to be recognized here with this proposal. If you disagree, that's fine. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 04:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Bryan Appleyard? Have you read his blog? To describe him as in any way a science journalist would be an error.  The man's a blithering nincompoop who believes that an eye is irreducibly complex. --TS 01:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Your opinion of the author is irrelevant and does very little to move the conversation forward. Please address the issue which I have presented here. Do you recognize a difference between the neutrality of science and the POV of scientific fundatmentalism? If not, then please consider the long conversations I have participated in at Atropa belladonna, where editors (mainly ScienceApologist fought with me long and hard because they didn't want the article to mention anything about the homeopathic usage of this specimen of plants. Why? It wasn't because the sources were weak. I presented a book published by the Oxford Press. It wasn't because the included text was pushing any sort of pro-homeopathic POV. The text was neutrally worded and even stated that there was no scientific evidence for the efficacy of the homeopathic preparations made with the specimen. So the text was verified to a reliable source and it met NPOV perfectly. It even presented the view of mainstream science. So why did ScienceApologist and company want to remove and continue to want to remove this text from the article. Simple put, it is because they are letting scientific validity dictate some criteria for inclusion. This is a clear example scientific fundamentalist POV pushing. Because ScienceApologist thinks that homeopathy is bunk, then he believes that we should not mention a notable usage of homeopathy in an article about a plant from which the "remedy" is made. (I say "remedy" lightly because I too think Homeopathy is crap.) But regardless of my opinion of homeopathy or even mainstream science's opinion, mentioning a notable usage of homeopathy in the Atropa belladonna article meets all the inclusion criteria of Wikipedia. If Wikipedia dains to be the sum of all human knowledge, then doesn't that include homeopathic knowledge as well? In short, even though homeopathy is bunk, information about homeopathy is not bunk - especially if it is coming from the mainstream scientific POV and is sourced reliably. After months and months of arguing from a scientific fundamentalist POV, ScienceApologist eventually bowed in the face of such little community support of his position. What remains at Atropa belladonna now is well-sourced information from a neutral and mainstream scientific perspective. It represents what Wikipedia strives to be. If ScienceApologist had his way - if he was able to remove homeopathic information because homeopathy isn't scientifically valid - then our Atropa belladonna would be missing some notable information from the sum of all human knowledge. I hope this clarifies what I mean when I say that scientific fundamentist POV pushing is just as damaging to Wikipedia as Fringe POV pushing. What are your thoughts on my explanation? -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 02:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I would just like to comment on something that I have notcied is showing up in a lot of these types of proposals. That is new definitions to what words mean and using these words as catch phrases like they are special in some way to define an editor or an edit style.  Either way you want to look at it I think everyone should oppose the use of these new catch phrases before the actually get adopted.  With what I am seeing is there are editors, and I am not pointing to anyone specific here, that are trying to change things to make it easier to stonewall, white wash and ignore the policies of fringe theory and core policies.  There are core policies, if you don't like them then work with others to change them.  But wait a minute, a few have tried to do this very idea and the communtiy didn't accept it. Read the history of Fringe theories and see how that turned out. So I ask, is this the new way of trying to get arbcom to make the changes that failed by the community consensus to get things accepted?  I hope not.  I say lets drop these special catch words and phrases and write proposals that have actual teeth to stop the feet dragging and allows editors to do what we are supposed to be doing, making the project as WP:NPOV using the policies in place.  Editors who continue to edit in a WP:TE or continually violate WP:EW should be blocked.  The blocks should be done as usual until the editor understands or the editor should be shown the door if the behaviors does not change.  I have seen in articles editors working really hard to achieve WP:CON only to be stalled by a few who throws up tags, alternates ideas and so forth making it all but impossible to get to edit a sentence into the article.  These types of behaviors have to stop.  I think with reading others comments here, most editors here want someone, anyone, to stop the tenacious editing to stop.  I also think that calls for banning of others here should stop.  If an editor needs special attentions then there are venues to use to get to that goal. My understanding of this case is to try to come up with ideas to help achive a working environment in fringe topic areas.  I have to agree that help from the arbitrators are needed for this because the community seems to split to come to their own conclusions.  I'm losing focus so I'll stop now but please lets stop the catch words like the ones above and debunking and the whole lot of them.  All I see happening with the use of these phrases is a bigger divide which is really not needed. Thanks for listening, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  12:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe Levine2112 used unnecessary strong wording in his proposal. However, the core issue is that it is possible to be a “pro-science” pro-mainstream POV-pusher and push your own POV beyond NPOV. And that such POV-pushing is unacceptable. Sometimes I get the impression that the pro-science editors either deny that such POV-pushing can exist at all, alternatively that it can never be too much of that. Such POV pushing can exist and it is a problem. Just look at the post by the well respected Admin DGG MaxPont (talk) 15:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Levine2112 brings up ScienceApologist's attempts to keep mention of homeopathic uses out of articles on plants, which was rather extreme POV pushing. I do think levine2112's language is obscuring his point. --TS 03:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If you can offer some clearer language, I would greatly appreciate it. I'm finding it hard to put it into words. But sometimes we scientifically minded people are guilty of confusing a concept's lack of scientific validity to be some criteria for exclusion in Wikipedia. When we do this, we are pushing the extremist POV called Scientific Fundamentalism - that if a concept isn't rational, then even neutrally worded information about that concept is worthless. This is as detrimental to good encyclopedia writing as Fringe POV pushing because even knowledge about a pseudoscientific concept is still knowledge. Oof. There I go rambling again. :-) Tony (or anyone else who thinks that they can lend some clarity to my clumsy language), feel free to express it. And thanks for reading! -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 07:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I'm sorry but I have to oppose this new terminology. I don't think the project will benefit from terms like this.  Wikipedia should be advancing the scientific views on articles and giving the minority views the proper WP:Weight.  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  16:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It might be my obtuse writing at fault here, but I don't think you understand what I am getting at here at all. This isn't "new terminology" but rather terms well established in academia. Please consider reading new posts in this thread and then reformulating your thoughts to better match the topic here. Thanks. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 07:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Scientific Fundamentalism POV pushing shouldn't be tolerated
1.1) Scientific Fundamentalism represents an extremist point of view not necessarily aligned with mainstream thought and the push of this POVs should no more be tolerated than the push of the Fringe POV. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 17:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

(rewritten to eliminate "pseudoskepticism")


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * The term "Scientific Fundamentalism" above is linked to our article Scientism, which offers the definition "the view that natural science has authority over all other interpretations of life, such as philosophical, religious, mythical, spiritual, or humanistic explanations, and over other fields of inquiry, such as the social sciences." I don't think it's much help here, because on Wikipedia at least, natural science does rightly have a stronger voice where it is relevant, even in social sciences.  A good example of this is the articles on the Hundredth Monkey Effect, Sheldrake's Morphic resonance, and all other articles related Jung's concept of the collective unconscious, which cannot be correctly understood outside the context of their opposition to the prevailing naturalism of modern scientific disciplines.  These articles are arguably unbalanced at present if they do not give that context.  Some of those ideas have been relegated to the cinderalla discipline of parapsychology, but Jung remains influential (and rightly so) in much thinking in the field of psychology.  We do him an injustice, however, if we do not present his revolutionary ideas in the context of their heterodox tone.  Of course much of Jung's thinking remains impervious to critique within the domain of the natural sciences, but where the psychological theory does impinge (which is the case in the two earlier examples I gave) the surrounding context cannot be ignored.  It really isn't POV-pushing to give a lot of weight to critiques of Sheldrake's experiments, for instance.  This is why I think it's correct to spend as many words emphasizing the pseudoscientific nature of Sheldrake's theory as we do in describing it, in the lead section of morphic resonance. --TS 17:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose that I am more referring to the 2 perjorative type definitions of the term, which are also given in the article Scientism. In this way, perhaps Scientific imperialism is more aligned with the POV which I am attempting to describe. This term describes an attitude towards knowledge in which the beliefs and methods of science are assumed to be superior to, and to take precedence over, those of all other disciplines. These days, I admit that I am actually guilty of being a bit of a scientific imperialist in my real life. However, I understand the need to put such a POV in check when I am editing on Wikipedia. For instance, imagine how the God article would read if it were written purely from a scientific imperialistic POV. I imagine something to the effect of: There is not scientific proof of God, therefore God is a pseudoscientific concept. On more science related articles, the silliness of this may not be quite so apparent. But if we go back to the whole plant-articles-shouldn't-mention-homeopathic-usage-of-said-plant-because-homeopathy-is-pseudoscience-and-information-about-pseudoscience-should-not-be-propogated-in-our-encyclopedia argument, we can see the damaging effects Scientific imperialism has on Wikipedia. Literally, months and months of arguing and edit warring by ScienceApologist and company - all trying to lay claim to the article in the name of scientific imperialism.


 * Okay, I am going to try another formulation of this proposal below using Scientific imperialism as the base. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 18:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Scientific imperialism POV pushing shouldn't be tolerated
1.2) Scientific imperialism represents an extremist point of view not necessarily aligned with mainstream thought and the push of this POV should no more be tolerated than the push of the Fringe POV. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 18:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * More meaningless twaddle. Mathsci (talk) 02:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A very immature and ignorant comment. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 02:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The phrase "scientific imperialism" is meaningless when applied to the editing of science-related articles on wikipedia. The systematic use of such phrases seems to be one of the tactics of fringe POV pushers needlessly to prolong arguments, tiring out neutral editors. Such behaviour is disruptive and time-wasting. Mathsci (talk) 06:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I am a neutral editor and I don't find the term meaningless nor do I find this process to be disruptive nor time-wasting. This is the first time I have used this phrase or have seen this phrase used as a description of an editors POV, so I personally don't see this as systematic. All I am trying to do here is come up with a proper label for the kind of editors who push the POV that the beliefs and methods of science are superior to, and to take precedence over, those of all other disciplines. To me, this is just as detrimental of POV to push as the pushing of the Fringe POV. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss  06:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Your proposals have included the phrases "scientific fundamentalism", "pseudoscepticism", "scientific imperialism", etc. The same criticisms can be applied to all of them. They are emotive phrases that can be used against fellow editors who do not share a particular fringe point of view. It has been said repeatedly that there is no alternative to the "scientific method" when editing articles on science, fringe science or pseudoscience. The phrases you are introducing suggest that this is not your own point of view. Mathsci (talk) 07:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. Pro science POV pushing is also POV pushing. MaxPont (talk) 09:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the proposed principle "Advocacy", which now has 6 of the 7 supporting votes needed to pass against any opposition, says what needs to be said adequately:
 * Wikipedia is not for advocacy. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to state neutrally the current knowledge in a field, not to put forward arguments to promote or deride any particular view.  In particular, conjectures that hold significant prominence must no more be suppressed than be promoted as factual.
 * --TS 10:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you are correct, TS. Thanks for pointing that out to me! :-) -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 19:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

NPOV
NPOV requires that only verifiable, reliable sources are used. In science, this are peer-reviewed journal articles and book published by reputable academic presses.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * This is the core of the issue. When this is used, SPOV == NPOV (and I say this as a scientist myself)

Undue_weight
Undue weight should be avoided at all cost.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Follows from NPOV

POV-pushing
Both hard-core scientists as well as pseudoscientists push their own specific POV.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Yes. Nice that someone came up with a neutrally worded proposal. —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 00:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Duh.

Anti-expert
Experts are routinly run off wikipedia by POV-pushers of fringe sciences, amateurs who think they know it all, and power hungry administrator cabals with obvious POV agenda's.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Yes. I have experienced this in parapsychology.  People come along with extremely strong beliefs, then make cocksure statements which any knowledgeable critic of parapsychology would refute.  And often they have directly refuted it, like the claim that parapsychology cannot be science because of its subject matter. Then they come and insult eveyone who tries to correct them as fringe POV pushers. —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 00:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Don't get me started on this.
 * I'll agree with this, as soon as I don't have to give names :D Experts do get WP:BITEn very hard when they try to make an article neutral --Enric Naval (talk) 07:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Grumble. Agree, although I would put it the reverse way.  Conventional scientists who have investigated parapsychology and found the studies flawed are driven off, also.  (For what it's worth, I haven't been editing as much in my specific field as I might.)  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 02:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Content Arbcom
The community will set up an Content Arbcom of experts in both the sciences and editing. They will develop appropriate procedures to resolve content issues based on verifiable, reliable sources presented by both sides of the dispute.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Agree in general. It would depend on particulars.  Was it the NSF who set up a panel on parapsychology which included a bunch of CSICOP members and no parapsychologists? —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 00:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * LONG overdue. I am available to work on this. Trying to remain out of content issues is NOT going to work. Left and right, we can punish some individuals who wander in the realm of behavioural issues, but generally, most POV pushing can go on for many years without running amok woith the current system.
 * Oppose. Content issues are best decided by a larger number of editors e.g. through article-content RfCs. This would be going in the opposite direction, limiting the number of people involved in content decisions.  I don't think it's within the scope of ArbCom to set up such a committee. ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 02:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You miss what I say. This is for unresolvable content disputes. They are now NOT resolved, and become just festering puss-filled sores that keeps eating editors due to the POV-warriors that just never ever give up. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 05:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, this is another layer of bureaucracy. Should be done when there is a real issue needing it, current resolution avenues are working good enough for now. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Additional proposal by User:MaxPont added later
(I forgot this proposal in my first post above and placed it here in order to avoid that it would be missed.)

The goal of Wikipedia is to cover the sum of all human knowledge

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * We need to explicitly endorse the vision of Jimbo Wales for Wikipedia “free access to the sum of all human knowledge”. If there is a discrepancy between the PR message that Wikipedia uses for external communication and the internally stated principles it will soon be found out by the bloggosphere (and eventually by the media) and cause problems for Wikipedia fundraising. Crowdsourcing by a large number of small donations from around the world will be hampered if Wikipedia is perceived to adopt a pro-establishment, pro Inside the Beltway, US-centric, pro-military bias. In that case Wikipedia will have to rethink its financing and explicitly seek funds from Washington Think Tanks, lobbyists and Industry supported research institutes. I hope that will not be the future of Wikipedia. MaxPont (talk) 10:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What if the "sum of human knowledge" includes a strong consensus that a pet belief is incorrect? The sum of all knowledge does not mean that we catalog every viewpoint, but rather that we accurately convey the level of informed support for them as well. In any case, most people don't react well to threats - I don't know how effective you'll find this motivational approach. Additionally, please recognize that your perspective on Wikipedia's biases is a bit idiosyncratic; much more commonly, Wikipedia is accused of a "left-wing" secular-liberal bias, though I suppose Wikipedia's perceived bias varies according to the agenda one is trying to advance here. MastCell Talk 01:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions
Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to fringe theories, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision by an uninvolved administrator; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.

In determining whether to impose sanctions on a given user and which sanctions to impose, administrators should use their judgment and balance the need to assume good faith and avoid biting genuinely inexperienced editors, and the desire to allow responsible contributors maximum freedom to edit, with the need to reduce edit-warring and misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground, so as to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment even on our most contentious articles. Editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators. An editor unable or unwilling to do so may wish to restrict their editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions.

All sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision are to be logged at Requests for arbitration/Fringe science.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I had proposed something similar myself at Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion/Workshop, but decided upon consideration that this is not the way to go. We don't need to give admins any more powers.  We need to encourage them to apply the policies we already have.  Jehochman Talk 03:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed, based on Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. This remedy will empower uninvolved administrators to implement discretionary sanctions in those "fringe" areas that don't fall under other cases, such as fringe science (cold fusion), UFOs/paranormal subjects, fringe medicine (acupuncture), films about fringe theories (What the Bleep Do We Know?) etc. Note that the remedy as I've worded it is "fringe theories" and not "fringe science". This is a wider range than the specific focus of this particular case; however, just as the Digwuren case authorized discretionary sanctions relating to all of Eastern Europe, this remedy may help empower administrators who are dealing with the kinds of disputes occurring at articles about non-mainstream theories and practice. --Elonka 23:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. "Uninvolved administrator" is a term that is probably best avoided here; it has been used to justify interventions where there clearly have been prior problematic relations between an administrator and an editor. This particular ArbCom case is about fringe science, not fringe theories. Important principles specifically concerning fringe science already seem to be emerging. The approach proposed above, favouring civility over content, has already proved to be unsuccessful when dealing with fringe science; it plays into the hands of civil POV pushers and stifles constructive discussion. Mathsci (talk) 03:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In terms of "enforcing the policies we already have", administrators have limited tools at their disposal: We can warn, we can block, and we can protect a page so that no one can edit it.  Which in some cases is like swatting a fly with a sledgehammer.  The reason that discretionary sanctions are more useful in these situations, is because they give administrators the ability to place more creative sanctions.  So instead of completely blocking a user from the entire project, or protecting a page so that no one can edit it, we can simply ban one disruptive user from a particular page for a few days.  But the current wiki-culture has conflicting feelings about the idea of a page ban, such that while the culture often accepts the idea of an administrator blocking a user for pretty much anything, that when it comes to an administator imposing a limited page ban, this is often seen as more controversial, and often leads to extensive ANI threads about whether or not the admin was "abusing their authority".  It does seem to be ironic, and a bit hypocritical, that an administrator may receive more criticism for banning a user from a single page, than for entirely blocking them from Wikipedia, but that's the way that the culture's expectations appear to be aligned right now. Looking towards the future though, administrators should be encouraged to try limited bans rather than full-out blocks.  It allows the affected user to continue to edit the project in other less controversial areas, and it also has the benefit of keeping a "black mark" out of the user's block log.  All of which are good things. And as another addendum on why the wording for discretionary sanctions might be better as "fringe theories" instead of "fringe science", is that this would help with other articles that don't fall into other ArbCom discretionary sanction categories.  In a scan through the talkpages that are currently tagged with calmtalk, to see where administrator assistance might be helpful, can be found articles such as these:  Crop circles, Indigo children, Gay bomb, Cattle mutilation, Abramelin oil, Gliese 581 c, Neuro-linguistic programming, Seth Material, and others. There's also the long long list of articles that have been tagged as disputed for years. If discretionary sanctions could be authorized by the Arbitration Committee on some more of these articles, it might help stabilize the articles that are in current edit wars, and also to reduce the disruption caused by future battles. --Elonka 20:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have had a different experience. In the past, I've employed "partial" or "non-standard" remedies like page bans or topic bans on my own authority, without discretionary sanctions. That is, I've simply said: "I'm banning User:X is banned from this page for 3 months; if they edit it during that time, I or another admin will block them." As you said, employing such remedies is actually less drastic than blocking a user. I have generally not encountered significant opposition to such actions taken under my own authority. If such an action results in real disagreement on an AN/I thread, then it may be that the action is simply not a good idea or lacks community support, in which case buttressing it with an ArbCom fiat doesn't seem especially useful. I guess what I'm saying is that if the remedy you're employing is a good one, then you don't need a "discretionary sanction" to back it up. If the remedy is a poor one, then falling back on a "discretionary sanction" probably isn't the best approach anyway. MastCell Talk 20:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It depends on the topic area where the discretionary sanctions are being implemented. If there are Tag teams in operation, my experience is that bans are challenged within minutes, and members of the team come flooding in to try and present an illusion of consensus against the administrator's action. At least when bans are placed per ArbCom discretionary sanctions as opposed to an admin's say-so, the admin has that smidgen more authority that can get a sanction (or if necessary, a block) to stick. --Elonka 22:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the kind of policy suggested here, normally applied to competing sides of nationalists, can be applied to fringe science. If mainstream science had to defend itself on wikipedia, that might be reasonable. But obviously it doesn't, so this strategy is a clear non-starter, since it obviously would favour fringe POV pushers. It has been tried in the past without success. What has been beneficial is the presence amongst editors of patient experts like User:Eubulides or User:Wobble; this of course cannot be taken for granted. Mathsci (talk) 23:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Discretionary sanctions have been an utter and unmitigated failure, at least in the pseudoscience/homeopathy cases (I studiously avoid ethnic conflicts, so I offer no opinion on their effectiveness in that particular nest of vipers). They have a chilling effect on editors on one or both sides of the conflict, especially when the admin imposing the sanctions is perceived to have a POV on the issue. Discretionary sanctions, particularly when combined with the "respect mah authoritah or get desysopped" canard that some have pushed, give first-mover advantage to the admin who imposes them, which promotes an incentive to act hastily and abrogates community discussion of the issues surrounding these articles. And, yes, they have almost inevitably generated needless drama when imposed, though I strongly deprecate the term "tag team". Mathsci, with respect, mainstream science has constantly needed to defend itself on Wikipedia. Hence this arbitration, and the one before it, and the one before it... Skinwalker (talk) 00:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Problematic editing
1) Contributors whose actions over a period of time are detrimental to the goal of creating a high-quality encyclopedia may be asked to refrain from those actions when other efforts fail to address the issue, even when the actions are undertaken in good faith.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Yeah; this reminds me of Competence is required, though the thrust is a bit different in this particular case. MastCell Talk 18:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Bad blood
2) A history of bad blood, poor interactions and/or heated altercations between users can complicate attempts to reach consensus and disrupt the editing atmosphere. Inflammatory accusations and sarcastic messages perpetuate grudges and poison the well.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Article talk pages
3) Article talk pages are intended for productive discussions about the article content. The article talk space is an inappropriate forum for user complaints.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Importing disputes
4) It is inappropriate to import disputes and grudges into other areas of the wiki, including but not limited to other articles, policy editing, and unrelated community discussions. This is disruptive behavior, degrading the editing environment and destabilizing community discussions.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Wikipedia is a collaborative project
Though conflicts may be inevitable, the wiki process depends on editors working together. Generally speaking, the more editors who are involved the better the process works: more users watching for vandalism, more perspectives, and more input.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. See this conversation I had with MastCell for my views in depth.--Tznkai (talk) 22:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support, although the "Generally speaking" tempers (correctly) the statement. As an aside, I think some noticeboards are underutilized.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Choosing sides is not helpful
A collection of encyclopedic, useful, and neutral article is the end goal of Wikipedia - and turning Wikipedia into a battleground doesn't help that goal.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. See this conversation I had with MastCell for my views in depth.--Tznkai (talk) 22:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support straightforward. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Chilling effect
Uncivil users not only offend and distract their fellow editors, but long term incivility from multiple parties pushes other editors out. Those who are most likely to be responsible and neutral are the most likely to be demoralized and unwilling to contribute to an area in dispute.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed - quite simply, I'd rather work with a user that is civil, not one that is disruptive. Its not your point of view so much as how much trouble you're causing on the way. --Tznkai (talk) 22:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments I agree with the first sentence, although its effect may be more empirical (consequential) than intended. The second statement can be true and certainly has in some cases but may be problematic to generalize from.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

ScienceApologist
ScienceApologist has engaged in persistent and excessive long term incivility. This incivility has disrupted the collaborative creation and maintenance of articles.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Pick a diff from an appropriate evidence section. My personal favorite is the death threat. Joke? Probably. Acceptable? No. Funny? No. Problematic? Yes.--Tznkai (talk) 22:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support His behavior makes me cringe sometime. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Martinphi
Martinphi has engaged in persistent and excessive long term incivility. This incivility has disrupted the collaborative creation and maintenance of articles.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I've been reviewing the evidence page and haven't found evidence to support incivility from Martinphi. I might have missed it though, as the evidence page is rather long. Can you point to some diffs? Carcharoth (talk) 21:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Pick a diff from an appropriate evidence section. --Tznkai (talk) 22:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support with caveats I have not ruled out that some of his objectionable behavior may be due to the factcitation needed that he genuinely and grossly misunderstands the goals and spirit of the project. That said, I'd be hopelessly naive to think that all of such behavior is due to that.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see evidence of gross incivility or any kind of incivility. There are no diffs here, upon which a statement on incivility can be based nor have diffs been found to support this statement. If there are no diffs the statement is baseless and should be struck. When accusing we have to be specific and careful, and should build statements based on diffs as evidence. Further discussion here.(olive (talk) 04:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC))


 * This is a workshop proposal that hasn't got much support, and isn't reflected in the proposed decisions. I think I understand what Tznkai is getting at; I certainly have found Martinphi's activities on the project to be  disruptive to the creation and maintenance of articles, and believe that he "grossly misunderstands the goals and sirit of the project."  I agree with olive that not everyone would call this incivility, but there are different kinds of incivility, some more disruptive to the actual creation of an encyclopedia than others, even they may be more superficially civil.   Since he's been community banned, and since this isn't part of the proposed decisions, I'm not sure what the concern is here.  You don't agree with this proposal, so don't support it. And please sign your post, olive, thanks. Woonpton (talk) 03:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a comment under the "comment" section :o). I think there are times when concerns can be aired whether they are acted upon or not. I have some concerns I have put up for consideration and possible discussion. That's all. I believe Arbs can continue to add proposed decisions at this point, (I may be wrong), although, that isn't why I commented here...and I still have those concerns which I noted above .(olive (talk) 05:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC))

ScienceApologist's account indefinitely blocked
ScienceApologist's account is indefinitely blocked. ScienceApologist is encouraged to start a new account - but that must be his only account. The new account's name will be disclosed only to ArbCom and the Checkuser's mailing list.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. An attempt at a creative fix to an intractable problem. Meant to be eancted in tandem with "Martinphi's account indefinitely blocked" below. --Tznkai (talk) 23:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I can only chortle at this suggestion. ScienceApologist has already tried this strategy himself in the past (e.g. with his sockpuppet account User:Nondistinguised. It failed, of course, because his obstreperous, incorrigible and confrontational editing style is so very easy to recognise. Hilariously, to top it all (and as documented in earlier ArbComm's) when I asked him if he was indeed ScienceApologist in a new guise, he flatly lied and denied it, and as icing on the tried to get me banned for harrassing him. lol --feline1 (talk) 00:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * What's in a name? that which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet; So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd, retain that dear perfection which he owes without that title. Dlabtot (talk) 02:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * In truth, a rose is a rose...but with new user names the history of each editor becomes very easy to track if a clean slate comes with the package. Right now the history of these two users is so complex as to be almost impossible to understand, follow and so to judge completely and fairly.(olive (talk) 04:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC))


 * While making a clean breast of things might not be a bad idea, one does feel that it shouldn't be done by force. Unless SA is suggesting he would like to go down this route, I think he shouldn't. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 13:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment The only advantage I see in allowing him to start over with another account is that he will not be subject to the baiting, etc that he deals with now. As it would be, either his behavior will improve and his new account will stand on its own, or its new identity will be compromised due to unfortunate similarities to SA's poor behavior.  In either case, there is no difference than if he just continued with the SA account, and either behaved better, or not, except that he may will more likely be baited with his old account.  The balance to be considered here is losing transparency of behavioral record vs his anticipated stress caused by baiting.  With apologies to SA, I think the project better served by keeping his record intact.  In a perfect world, we could handle the problem of baiting, and this becomes easier.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Waste of time. A new account will be immeadiately identifiable by anyone in the know by the pattern of articles edits and style of edits William M. Connolley (talk) 18:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Martinphi's account indefinitely blocked
Martinphi's account is indefinitely blocked. Martinphi is encouraged to start a new account - but that must be his only account. The new account's name will be disclosed only to ArbCom and the Checkuser's mailing list.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. An attempt at a creative fix to an intractable problem. Meant to be enacted in tandem with "ScienceaApologists's account indefinitely blocked" above --Tznkai (talk) 23:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * see my comment to the similar proposal directed towards SA. Dlabtot (talk) 02:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Same comment above User: SA.(olive (talk) 04:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC))
 * Not really an option unless his community ban is overturned. While the Arbcom has the right to overturn bans, overturning a ban and removing the community's ability to monitor the user days after his community ban seems excessively meddlesome.
 * Obviously, we should have a procedure to make it possible for banned editors to rehabilitate themselves. However, Martin's last statements (User_talk:Martinphi) is simply an announcement that he is right, and everyone who ever disagreed with him is wrong. Furthermore, he explicitly outed people twice, including me (I was used as an example of an acceptable target for him to out, no less), in the process of saying he had the right to maintain a link to SA's real nane. I think that, at the least, some time will have to pass to make any promises of reform by him credible. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 13:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the question here is how much of Martin's troublesome behavior is linked to him saving face - his name - and a reaction to people reacting to his reputation and history. A new username is essentially a laboratory situation in this case: not a clean slate. Its a way to figure out what exactly the problem is. Its probably worth mentioning, that this proposal is twinned with ScienceApologist also going into the laboratory situation. A significant part of the problem is the interaction between these two users - and while not the sole aspect of the Fringe science case, its perhaps emblematic.
 * The procedural issue with ArbCom is fairly minor - I was the one who did the block, and I'm the one proposing this idea. I'm much more worried about whether or not this is at all a good idea. I'm not convinced myself - creative solutions tend to have unintended consequences and failures but sometimes they spark ideas. --Tznkai (talk) 15:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I read and replied to the SA proposal above before reading this and realizing that the "restart" experiment was intended to be paired. After seeing this discussion, I realize that there is more merit to starting over than I thought, due to the speculation that face-saving might be important.  That said, in either the context of a community ban or of an arbcom decision, I believe it serves the project well to tie both said editors' editing privileges to the condition that each respectively recognize by both word and editing deed that they understand the principles of the project which allude them now.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

ScienceApologist banned
ScienceApologist banned for 1 year.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Someone's gotta say it.--Tznkai (talk) 22:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Since ScienceApologist's editing style has not changed appreciably in the 3 or more years he's been editing, what makes you think it would change enough in 1 year of exclusion for him to be fit to return after that? --feline1 (talk) 00:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Camment Part of me is curious as to what improvement we would see from SA if all the baiting, IDHT, etc. he had to deal with went away. On the other hand, part of me is afraid to find out.  While this proposal is probably slightly unduly strict, I don't object to it.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't quite follow - ScienceApologist was not first "baited" and then became the editor he is today as a result - rather, any "baiting" he gets has followed from a reaction amoung the community to his editing style.--feline1 (talk) 13:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Your first statement does not contradict anything I mentioned, so you misunderstood. To clarify, SA has, for as long as I have witnessed, had a proverbial bee in his bonnet.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what might happen shen someone pokes the bonnet with a stick.  As to your second statement, I cannot attest to that one way or another, but to the extent that it is true, then that makes such baiting behaviors even that much more intolerable.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Martinphi banned
Martinphi is banned for 1 year.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Someone's gotta say it.--Tznkai (talk) 22:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Again, this is IMO slightly unduly strict, but I would not object. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

General discussion

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Comment by Abd

 * I am concerned that a designation of a field as "fringe science" can then warp other decisions; in the absence of a clear and reversible procedure for such a designation, Wikipedia can become very conservatively biased, such that what would ordinarily be considered reliable source is rejected as unreliable (because it is "fringe") and sources that are even accepted by editorial consensus are impossible to use because they are blacklisted, which has happened without significant linkspam, with "fringe" being a major and probably decisive part of the arguments presented. I'm currently working with a situation I encountered of this, and the general suggestion as to how to deal with such a blacklisted site is to request whitelisting of specific pages. However, this isn't a process that can be accomplished by editors working on a specific article, it requires convincing someone, a whitelist admin, who may be totally unfamiliar with the field, and the process seems broken. I'm not trying to resolve this situation here, it falls far short of something arbitable at this point; however, my point is that designating a field as "fringe" can cause serious harm that warps editorial consensus. I don't think that any responsible editors are arguing that we should allow articles to become unbalanced, but when the situation comes to the point that notable and reliably sourced views and sources that would otherwise be considered reliable, are excluded from the project merely because they are "fringe," we have created a biased playing field. In the example I'm working on, an involved administrator, citing Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion, unilaterally removed references to certain pages containing copies of papers that were, by editorial consensus, considered usable and reliable, and then, not following normal blacklist procedure, blacklisted the domains. The sites hosting the papers were alleged to be biased, "fringe." (Copyright violation was also asserted, but as DGG has pointed out, that seems unlikely.) Further, the peer-reviewed scientific journal or journals and other edited publications that publish in the general field, (Condensed matter nuclear science), are asserted to be unreliable because the field is "fringe." An article on the general field, CMNS, as distinct from the largely historical field of Cold fusion, was redirected to Cold fusion, not by consensus, but by involved editors with a clear POV, and the redirect is protected, because, allegedly, the general field article is "POV pushing by fringe advocates." Thus a whole field of research, being actively pursued by scientists all over the world, is tarred immediately with the brush of a rejected hypothesis, a single narrow finding, that would be a part, even a small part, of the field.


 * Books on the field are published by reputable publishers. And all of this is rejected by some editors as unusable because it's "fringe."


 * Cold fusion itself is a poor name for the currently active research field; most researchers and experts in the field consider that "cold fusion" was a mistake, a certainly premature identification of experimental anomalies as representing traditional "fusion," which hardly anyone still thinks. Rather, there has been, among those who have stayed current in the field, and including a majority of general experts convened by the U.S. Department of Energy in 1989 and 2004, a consensus that something unidentified and unexplained by current theory is taking place. (The source of this could be a previously identified nuclear process, or it could be experimental error, an error commonly repeated, perhaps because of some unidentified but non-revolutionary process.) Explanations have been proposed that would resolve some of the anomalies, but not all of them. It appears that such neutral review as may have taken place recently is immediately rejected as "fringe," because of the conclusions the reviews reach. This happens both on and off-wiki. However, I can assert with certainty that among the knowledgeable, as distinct from those who are simply holding impressions from the old Cold fusion debacle, the field never has been and still is not true "fringe" science, it's been what might be called "minority" science, not yet generally accepted as involving truly new science. With true fringe science, we don't see governmental agencies suggesting that further research is appropriate, that individual project funding is appropriate, and we don't see actual project funding in various recognized research institutions, plus some publication in ordinarily accepted journals, not specializing in the field, taking place.


 * Properly, the question of what sources are usable in a particular circumstance should be a matter for editorial consensus, not for administrative action contrary to the consensus, nor for ArbComm fiat, unless the application of policies is very clear.


 * I'm not providing diffs here at this point because I'm simply pointing out a problem, not trying to prove misbehavior or a specific situation. However, at the request of any arbitrator, I will provide diffs to demonstrate or back up what I've written. --Abd (talk) 17:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply to Abd: I agree. Furthermore, whether something is "fringe" or not should not be considered a black-and-white designation. In reality, ideas have various degrees of acceptance and notability, and a given source might contain different ideas with different levels of fringeness. A source may be useful when discussing one topic but inadequate when discussing another topic which it also covers but for which more reliable sources are available. Whether an idea has sufficient notability to be described on a given page should be determined by the usual discussion and consensus, not some broad-brush blacklist. Sources about fringe topics are supposed to be usable on pages about those topics; WP:Fringe says "While fringe theory proponents are excellent sources for describing what they believe..." I apologize if my comments are not supposed to go in this section; anyone who knows what's going on may feel free to move them. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 18:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Strictly speaking, the closing sentence from that quote "Like it?" should also be included to avoid taking the quote out of context, and to demonstrate the attitude behind the comment. Carcharoth (talk) 19:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I retract the bit about "every person I'm in conflict with". A lot of conflict is good and I'm happy for it. I just had a conflict with User:Fyslee and I don't want to see him blocked or banned ever. While I recognize that the joy of Wikipedia is always taking comments out of context I will say this: there are a number of editors who are currently active on Wikipedia with whom I have come in contact whom I believe should be shown the door. I will also unabashedly say that I intend to help showing them that door. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, thanks for yet again confirming that you are out to get others, and Wikipedia is a battleground for you. This and other statements since show that you really mean it. —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 06:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:


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


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


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


 * When one says something foolish, it is a good idea to retract the statement so that others cannot continue to present it as evidence. I'll remove that bit from my evidence if the editor publishes a retraction. Jehochman Talk 22:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Jehochman, I would rather say that it would be a good idea for you to strike out your [pseudo]-quote of SA's obvious sarcasm in order to look less foolish yourself. It's ludicrous to offer that quote as evidence that SA has "bad intentions" towards the project. Please compare my own evidence section. Bishonen | talk 17:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC).


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


 * Martin, I suggest you delete that comment and the link. It was made by a sock, User:Durga's Trident, and his so-called "evidence" was deleted by MastCell. You need to stick to using legitimate evidence here. -- Fyslee (talk) 02:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If Martin wants to present that evidence using his main account, that's fine with me. I objected to the use of a sockpuppet in an ArbCom proceeding, as a general principle. MastCell Talk 05:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, MastCell. —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 06:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * So SA would like some people banned. Other people have clearly made their intentions to have him banned quite public. Lots of people want lots of people banned. So SA says something that his opponents also say and do, and you want to single SA out for it? That's not particularly helpful if your goal is a fair resolution of conflict in which all parties are held to the same standards. Of course if your goal is finding a reason to ban specific editors, using evidence that they would like other editors banned doesn't seem particularly logical either. 16:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * He's not being singled out. Any of those users you mention would have such statements considered if they were up before ArbCom. —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 22:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Statement taken out of context. The original statement (see diff above) did not begin with "I promise...", but with an if-clause. See Bishonen's discussion of the context of the remark. ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 17:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Per Ct: this is clearly taken out of context William M. Connolley (talk) 22:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Examine it in context, then, but don't pretend it didn't happen. Dlabtot (talk) 00:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Please at least insert an ellipsis at the beginning of the quote at the beginning of this section to indicate that "I promise" is not the beginning of a sentence. Properly, the if-clause should be included to avoid misunderstanding. ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 01:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to edit someone else's comments. Dlabtot (talk) 23:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, that deceptive use of a quote can't be allowed to just sit there. I'm fixing it. -- Fyslee (talk) 04:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)