Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science

=Statements by non-parties=

Comment by Sceptre
As some of the involved parties are outgoing arbitrators (e.g. FT2) and incoming arbitrators (Vass, Coren, Jay, and Rlevse), I reqeust that opening doesn't take place until the New Year; we are unlikely to settle an arbitration case in nine days. Sceptre (talk) 20:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Never mind, can't read (and was mistaken about FT2, but the peasants are revolting...). Ho hum. Sceptre (talk) 20:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by AGK
[In response to Sceptre:]

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

AGK 20:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


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

Comment by User:Rocksanddirt
I am unsure that this is a helpful way to resolve the ongoing dispute between SA and other users. SA has had numerous conflicts that follow some set patterns. The trouble begins when SA loses patience and becomes rude, and then editwars. There are several types of users that SA conflicts with 1) editors who are POV-pushing-fringe-science-nutters, 2) admins/editors who abhoor editwarring in all its forms, 3) admins/editors who like editors who are POV-pushing-fringe-science-nutters. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Another thought....I hope that this doesn't end up with a Giano solution, as that has worked not at all. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Response to JzG's comments - I don't participate in fringe articles as I find dealing with SA's rudeness and editwarring disruptive to my aggreement and participation with him on POV and sourcing issues. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Response to John Nevard's comments - SA has driven me away from articles he's invoved in for the most part. and I typically agree with his POV.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note from Lar
Just as a note (and nothing more, difficulty in an area is not a reason to shy away, but it is a reason to be aware there is difficulty in an area) there have been a fair number of CU cases already. They tend to be fairly dramatic in their own right, and the outcomes sometimes are inconclusive. An outright ban may be problematic without some very creative enforcement strategies, or fairly high levels of collateral damage. So.... all that said, I sure wish there was a way to resolve this without needing a ban. ++Lar: t/c 05:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * PS... what Cla68 said! I always recommend VestedContributor as good reading. Go reread your answer to my question about Vested Contributors if you need to. If this case is accepted it's as good a place as any to wrestle with this continuing problem (and better than some, it's not a Giano case, so that's something anyway.)... ++Lar: t/c 06:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

This was undone by Jehochman here - without any note made to SA that he had undone the archiving/collpasing, and without any notation made on the page that SA had, at any point, done the archiving/collpasing (only a small comment that Jehochman had undone the collpasing - without comment on the archiving), and without the insertion of any archival templates that would have redone the archiving but removed the collapse. Post the archiving/collpasing and removal of same, Smashville asked SA to archive the section. Jehochman responded, saying "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=next&oldid=259581489 "No, no. Don't delete anything. Leave it here for everyone to see. If SA wants to refactor their own comments, that is their choice, but they may not delete anybody else's remarks."]. Jehochman was the one who, prior to his comment, removed SA's archiving/collpasing (not deletion). Jehochman did not comment on the page that he removed the archiving, merely the collapsing. Jehochman, in response to someone who requested deletion, neglected to state that SA had previously inserted hat/hab, the farthest it is appropriate to go on a notice board page towards content deletion, and that Jehochman was soley responsible for the removal of the hat/hab. This lack of transparency throws Jehochman into disrepute, and leads me to question if he is reliable enough to delete revisions or view deleted content.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by peripherally-involved Jim Butler
I've had limited interaction with ScienceApologist and in my experience his methods of interacting vary from trenchant-but-civil to outright tendentious, edit-warring, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, etc. I'll add diffs and evidence and so on soon on the appropriate pages. But I have mixed feelings about this whole thing.
 * On the one hand, I applaud the effort, by anyone, to keep bullshit (whether fringe or highly notable pseudoscience) out of Wikipedia. I have no personal animus toward SA and I'm not out to "get" him and push through a ban.
 * On the other, I've noticed that SA's mission, more and more, seems to have become something of a righteous jihad. (Just read his user page as of today.)  With an "ends justify the means" mentality, he's been crossing all kinds of Wikiquette lines for a long time... see block log.  We have a lot of scientist-editors who don't get all dramatic like that.  I summarily reject the notion that because SA is on some special mission, it's OK for him to play bad cop.  What if everyone acted that way?  The collaborative glue holding WP together would fall apart.
 * Finally, to invoke WP:SPADE, he's simply not as smart (relative to his peers here) as he seems to believe he is; he tends to spout Science 101 type bromides in discussion. But the truth is, fer cryin' out loud, that lots of us have advanced degrees and are advocating a little more nuance, a little more attention to the demarcation problem, than SA generally thinks is necessary.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Gandalf61
I think the focus of this arbitration case should be ScienceApologist's recent interactions with other editors, set against the background of his past behaviour and his history of contributions to Wikipedia. Any discussion of wider issues and general principles quickly becomes academic and theoretical unless it is informed by specific instances. And the case at issue here is ScienceApologist.

That SA is frequently rude and uncivil does not seem to be in dispute. So that leaves two questions on the table:
 * Are there any valid mitigating arguments to excuse or even justify his behaviour ?
 * If not, what actions, if any, should the community take ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

=Discussion=

Arbcom amendments requested on previous case
I have filed a request for amendment related to the Paranormal arbitration case. All interested parties are invited to respond. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 08:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Instructions
The instruction clearly indicate that "Minimum information includes... what was done and the basis for doing it". It's troubling that the Admins involved have chosen not to note that SA was blocked for three spelling corrections and a link fix. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It is a continuation of disruption and gaming the system that was fully supported by ArbCom in the clarification process. Links to specific differences were posted that included more than three spelling corrections and one link repair.
 * When ArbCom makes a ruling, and then clarifies that gaming the system and circumventing and then flaunting the topic ban would lead to sanctions, it is best to abide by the ruling. seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  02:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess you're happy that your nemesis, someone who has opposed your protection of quackery and fringe topics and their editors, has now been blocked for improving the encyclopedia by making technical, not content edits.


 * There was nothing in those edits that violated the spirit of the topic ban, IOW, the "topic" wasn't touched at all.


 * We need a clarification on this matter, so here are some questions:


 * 1. Should topic banned editors (who are not indef banned) be allowed to make technical edits (spelling, wikilinks, ref fixes, etc.) that actually improve the encyclopedia without touching or affecting content and POV matters?


 * 2. Hasn't it always been our intention to get them to divert their energies into more constructive venues than editwarring?


 * 3. Is this ArbCom capable of making a decision that is nuanced for adult admins, rather than a black/white unnuanced decision that any ignorant child can enforce?


 * 4. Is there a place for common sense here?


 * Right now it looks like totally neutral improvements were punished because of who did it. Have we really come to that? I suggest that the ArbCom allow such edits, but with the stipulation that if any edit creates any type of change that is seen as vandalism or tweaking of content, the topic ban be restarted AND extended to a longer length than the original topic ban. It could also be replaced with an indef ban for a similar time period, IOW not editing of Wikipedia at all.


 * Just to make it clear, I have never defended SA's methodology. I think it stinks, but it is unfortunate that he has had so little support from the ArbCom and policies in his defence of Wikipedia's integrity. We can't make this a respectable encyclopedia when civil POV pushers of fringe and quackery POV are allowed to push SA's buttons and bait him so much, and HE ends up getting punished for (unfortunately, but understandably) blowing his stack. The history of his presence here has taught us what this manner of dealing with these matters has led to -- he has lost respect for ArbCom, and many sympathize with him.


 * The ArbCom needs to step up to the plate and take a proactive position against the misuse of Wikipedia for promotion of fringe, pseudoscience, and quackery POV. Defending scientifically documented reality is not advocacy, whereas defending and pushing fringe POV is advocacy of real-world OR, and it needs to stop. If such POV pushers want their POV treated with more respect here, let them publish it in the peer reviewed literature. THEN they will have RS to use, and they would be defending documented reality, not undocumented OR published in the (un)real world of altie, fringe, and conspiracy theory publications. -- Fyslee (talk) 04:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to make it clear, I have never defended SA's methodology. I take it, you mean other than this post? Dlabtot (talk) 04:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you mean. Be specific and give me a chance to explain or refactor if I have been unclear, which is entirely possible. -- Fyslee (talk) 04:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, in a post where you go at great lengths to defend SA's methods, you simultaneously say that you've never done so. I find it confusing. Dlabtot (talk) 04:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Repeating yourself (baiting?) isn't being "specific". Where have I defended his methods? I just stated I have never done so, and that I think they stink. What part of that don't you understand? You should just AGF and take me at my word. Please provide a quote from above where I defend his methodology. I do defend his POV, unlike yourself (an infamous pusher of pseudoscience POV here), but I don't like his confrontational and abrasive style. I have never defended that at all. Are you confusing "methodology" for "POV"? -- Fyslee (talk) 05:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no point to the criticism of your comment Fyslee. Apparently there are editors here who can't differentiate between content disputes and spelling corrections. If they think they are the same thing, what can be done? Your post made perfect sense, it's the responses and absurd actions of the administrators involved that defies understanding. Seicer is a perfect example, he went on a tirade of personal attacks and inappropriate comments yesterday, but considers himself well suited to opine on the necessity of preventing SA from making spelling fixes. Welcome to the theater of the absurd. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

=Clarifications=

Request for clarification : Requests for arbitration/Fringe science
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)

Statement by Hipocrite
SirFozzie "clarified" this case here. Is this valid? How could an outside user looking in know this was valid? Hipocrite (talk) 14:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment to ArbCom
 * Thank you for your haste in dealing with this. It is appreciated. Hipocrite (talk) 14:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman
The topic ban placed on ScienceApologist has proven highly problematic. It has lead to intense wikilawyering and campaigning for blocks on WP:AE. The Arbitration Committee was appointed to decide difficult cases. Decide. Don't fob your responsibilities onto the admin corps. No two users seem to agree on what the topic ban covers. Does it cover a simple article on plants, such as Atropa belladona? Can SA work on an article like Gamma-ray burst? If SA finds unsourced WP:OR in that article, can he remove it? SA has many antagonists who are ready to jump in and claim that SA is violating the topic ban. The decision in this case has made a total mess at WP:AE. You've made the situation worse rather than better. Jehochman Talk 15:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * SirFozzie can't be sanctioned because impersonating ArbCom isn't a crime. Everybody knows he's not ArbCom and that he doesn't have the power to modify a remedy. He can certainly express his common sense view on what a remedy means, which I think he did quite well.  The sanction handed down was naive because it failed to understand how heated and wikilawyerish the fringe science area is.  Either you ban somebody completely or you topic ban them in a way that leaves little doubt.  SA is a science editor.  Virtually all science articles have some sort of fringe component.  The ban as currently written might was well be a siteban if it is going to be construed that broadly. Jehochman Talk 21:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Tznkai
There are two basic ways to interpret SirFozzie's action. First, as part of the normal discretion implied and neccesary in having to interpret terms such as "broadly construed" and the generally wide berth that admins are given to enforce arbitration remedies, or 2. as an extra-procedural, but I would argue correct modification to an Arbitration remedy.

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

The key terms are "any article" and "broadly construed" The simplest and plain text reading of the remedy would allow any administrator to block ScienceApologist if he edits on any article that has any relation to fringe science, no matter how minute the relationship. This would include any edit on any such article, even the most uncontroversial. In other words, un-watchlist and walk away, you don't belong here. What others have interpreted it as is articles only tightly related to fringe science, or which the subject is fringe science - paranormal activity, UFOlogy, and so forth. Unfortunately, confounding the issue, some science is "fringe" in that it is generally not considered science, and some science is simply unpopular or in legitimate dispute (is my position that Pluto is a planet "fringe?"). In addition, this would also mean that edits that in themselves concern fringe science, are not restricted. Thus, an edit to Chinese culture is not restricted, even if it is to say "Chinese medicine is a pseudoscientific fraud" - which is clearly related to fringe science topic, but is not a fringe science article.

Fozzie's interpretation more accurately addresses what I believe was the intent of the committee: to keep ScienceApologist from editing on topics he has shown a history of problematic behavior, and thus the edit itself should also fall under the microscope. Otherwise, in order to make the restriction effective, we must go with the plaintext reading, leaving ScienceApologist topic banned from any article that touches the subject of fringe science or fields that are pseduoscientific, or have been related to fringe science in present or past, because of the wording of "broadly construed" - or we can use a common sense approach in reading the topic ban. Excessive obsession over wording minutiae leads us away from the obvious, but I will indulge anyway to point out this: both Bainer and Coren referred to the "topic area" which implies it is the content itself, not the title of the article, that is the problem.

It is my opinion that SirFozzie's clarification serves an obvious purpose: he is essentially publishing his interpretation of the remedy's intent and wording, and thus putting upfront under what conditions he as an administrator will block under - and other admins can endorse his opinion (as I do now) as the interpretation they will use.

If it is the opinion of the Committee that SirFozzie's action was confusing or distressingly extraprocedural, the solution is to quickly come to a clarification, preferably one endorsing SirFozzie's interpretation. Let me remind the Committee however, that Aribtration Enforcement is a difficult matter, and the administrators need a great deal of support, and as this request for comment has shown, the administrators are not getting it. It is the natural result of this situation that AE admins are left to make interpretations on the fly and on the ground - and that overriding such a decision should only be done when there is significant need. If the Committee chooses to disagree significantly and say so, it should also be the first of many acts showing the dedication of the Committee to become more responsive and involved in the administrator work done to enforce Arbitration decisions.--Tznkai (talk) 16:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * ScienceApologist is not improving the encyclopedia by making typo fixes in a topic banned area. Perhaps he was trying to, and I'm sure the fixes themselves were helpful, but the level of drama and disruption that was inevitable and likely planned has NOT improved anything. Improve the encyclopedia does not mean "I'm right, and the rest of you can go to hell." That attitude belongs in your own private space and work.--Tznkai (talk) 14:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement by ScienceApologist
One solution may be to simply lift the topic ban. There was another proposal called "3.2" that was gaining traction (maybe) but the arbitration closed before all arbitrators had a chance to consider it. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Motion 1.1 is pretty good as it makes others accountable for fringe science while enabling me to continue editing the 5 to 10 articles I normally edit each week. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement by DreamGuy
I almost posted to the ArbCom decision page to ask how on earth some random admin thought he had the authority to rewrite the text of one of the conclusions and present it as if it were valid. ArbCom should be the ones doing that stuff. He is certainly within his rights to suggest a rewording to ArbCom, but it should be explicitly agreed upon by all the people who voted for the conclusion or else it has no validity. I don't care what the issue is, it's a matter of principle and simple functioning of this site in general. The reason I didn't post originally is I figured it's probably what Arbcom intended and they could certainly object to it when they saw it, so this specific issue isn't my concern. Admins can't just unilaterally rewrite ArbCom decisions, and especially not admins with histories on conflict with the person it'd affect, and I can't believe it's even necessary to have to clarify that to people, but I guess it is. Admins who pull things like this should be firmly warned and removed if anything similar happens again. DreamGuy (talk) 17:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It'd be very helpful if some of the people responding here took a minute to read and realize this is not an arbitration request on ScienceApologist. It's a request to clarify a single admin can take it upon himself to rewrite an ArbCom decision. Whether the text of the rewrite itself makes sense is a side issue (people can agree that it would make a good clarification without agreeing on whether it the edits were made properly), and everything else is a completely off-topic tangent that doesn't belong here. 18:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement by User:Middle 8
What Chillum said. --Middle 8 (talk) 17:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * And this gem from ScienceApologist himself. --Middle 8 (talk) 17:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment re Dreamguy's admonition


 * Some of us (including some arbs, cf. below) evidently want to expand the discussion to the root of the problem. No offense intended.

Concurrence with User:ImperfectlyInformed


 * My experiences have been similar to I.I.'s, including being the target of one of SA's frivolous WP:AE actions.  Those are a lot more worrisome to me, in terms of the topic ban, than the correction of spelling errors.  SA has continued in his battleground mode, trying to make life as miserable as possible for those whose content views he opposes (and I also agree with I.I. that for a supposed "science editor" SA is remarkably parsimonious in his offering of sources, instead preferring to edit war over contentious language).

ArbCom and WP:AE admins not on the same page


 * WP:AE admins are declining to sanction SA for valid complaints users have brought over his continued misconduct: and I don't mean just the spelling errors, I mean SA's frivolous complaints to AE, which are self-evidently escalatory and vengeful.  Reasons for admins' lack of action seem to include their disagreeing with the decision and therefore refusing to enforce it (shouldn't they just recuse in that case?), opting to err on the side of decorum over difficult enforcement decisions, and not quite knowing what balance to strike in terms of whether to be gentle or firm with SA in the wake of his just having been through Arbitration.  I certainly understand that AE admins' jobs are not easy, but it would be good to "get everyone on the same page", and in that light Coren's comments below are helpful (as was Sir Fozzie's attempt to move toward clarity).

ScienceApologist still adheres to his M.O.


 * In his words: "I'm not at all convinced that the way I've been doing it clearly won't work. It is important to piss off people who are problematic. Otherwise they stick around and make the entire endeavor problematic."  I'm sure he genuinely believes this; the problem is that (a) he has some qualities of a WP:FANATIC, and does a poor job of deciding who is really a problematic editor (ImperfectlyInformed? Seicer? Elonka? No, I don't think so), and (b) his approach is un-Wikipedian:  if WP:POINT, WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:CIVILITY mean anything, they mean we don't resolve disputes by chasing away editors with a stick.  The germ of truth in his statement is that we do need to be stricter in policing content, but his approach is all wrong.

Compassion vs. enabling and double-standards


 * I also appreciate that SA is under a high level of wikistress and may be more likely to "act out", but consider that he's been "acting out" all along, and is merely continuing or escalating his existing pattern of bad behavior. Seems to me it's a deliberate "fuck you" to ArbCom and those who dare to disagree with him.  Enough double standards and apologetics.  Please take a firm stand on how handle this loose cannon of an editor. --Middle 8 (talk) 23:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement by GRBerry
Sir Fozzie's action is an obviously valid interpretation of the arbcomm remedy. I thus fully endorse the first five paragraphs of Tznkai's comment.

Instead of the sixth paragraph, I note that the sort of boundary pushing and rules lawyering evidenced in the recent WP:AE threads is 1) what we've been seeing for months in this topic area, 2) therefore utterly unsurprising, and 3) the reason why some of those engaged in it are likely to end up permanently site or topic banned due to a demonstrated inability to edit productively in a collaborative environment. I think the encyclopedia would be better off if those caught up in battleground behavior change their editing habits and edit collaboratively with those with whom they disagree, but this sort of behavior, unchanged, is likely to end up with some of them site banned.

I also think Chillum's suggestion is likely what is needed to change this user's current behavior pattern - the boundary needs to be made very clear and any crossing of that boundary needs to result in sanctions. Currently the boundary we have is an article space topic ban, and Sir Fozzie's interpretation makes the boundary clearer so is a good step toward implementing Chillum's suggestion. The next step is enforcing it. GRBerry 17:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement by ImperfectlyInformed
The edit which brought this "clarification" is. It's a typical edit for ScienceApologist, where he changed "a homeopathic mixture may have few to no molecules" to "there is none" and it obviously relates to fringe science, broadly construed. It's a fairly pointy and trivial edit; I don't see why this clarification is necessary. Other post-ArbCom edits include removing a reference that sodium lauryl sulfate is associated with canker sores. That's not a spelling correction, and is more debatable. I think SA thinks it's fringe science. I would revert him on it, but I don't want to get into an edit war. The fact that I'm reluctant to contest this sort of thing, even though 3 studies have shown an association with SLS and canker sores (,, -- 2 research teams) while 1 has not , gives an indication of the degree to which: 1) ScienceApologist is willing to edit-war and 2) how willing he is to remove scientific studies which do not support his POV. Even if I were to present the balanced picture, there's a good chance SA would revert. Actually, the above is all false. Looks like he was just removing it from the lead. My apologies.

In other news, ScienceApologist has now decided to up his campaign of false allegations and bad faith:
 * He recently called for a community ban of me and called me a POV pusher and "terrible editor", but the only diff he was able to provide was of me noting through a source that casualty insurance, which includes liability as well as property insurance, is problematically defined.
 * He has said that "it is important to piss off people who are problematic. Otherwise they stick around and make the entire endeavor problematic", and he seems to think that I'm one of those people.
 * The above allegations ignore the fact that I have probably done as much or more to suppress fringe science than he has, because I use references and clarify the facts. For example, I added the first critical reference on chelation therapy for heart disease and recently summarized what the past studies have found, I used an old Science reference to shed some light on the origin of the laetrile controversy, I supported the categorization of alternative cancer treatments which put most of them into "disproven" or "scientifically implausible", based mainly on references, I suggested putting the systematic review of multiple chemical sensitivity which found no support that it's a physical condition in the lead, and I've clarified exactly what the National Research Council found on fluoride's toxicity -- which largely entailed showing that toxic effects to DNA and organs seem to occur, if at all, at a much higher dose than one will get in any dose from fluoridated water.
 * Most recently I've faced opposition from ScienceApologist for using references to show that one of orthomolecular medicine's pet therapies, high-dose vitamin E for heart disease, was debunked by two RCTs, one in 1950 and one in 1974 and also, in that edit, clarified that the epidemiological studies finding lower heart disease among high vitamin E consumers was not orthomolecular, but mainstream. No explanation has been provided for removing the material, but it appears that I will have trouble working it into the article.

While no evidence has been provided of problematic editing on my part, people nevertheless feel entitled to assume bad faith of me because of ScienceApologist's unjustified mudslinging. The widespread misinformation campaign and frequent attacks has led to administrators who are afraid to enforce the Arbitration Committee's ruling, for fear of being tarred and feathered as fringe science promoteres and apologists. There is a widespread misconception that ScienceApologist does a lot of good work, when most of his edits are actually controversial not because they are good science, but because they are pointy and non-neutral. Good editors who combat fringe science such as User:Eubulides do not have major issues because they use references and present both sides. They are highly effective.

Since ScienceApologist feels so comfortable calling me a "terrible editor", I can honestly say that I can't recall ever seeing him add a reference, and I haven't been able to find any in a search of his contributions I've noticed that he very rarely adds references. If he wants to combat pseudoscience, using references is the way to go. A review of his contributions also shows that he has been editing fringe health science topics exclusively yesterday and today, although he also proposed Elonka for deletion. On the other hand, I add probably an average of 1-2 peer-reviewed journal references, often reviews, per edit. II | (t - c) 18:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Gatoclass
Unless I've missed something here, I must endorse Dreamguy's position. Administrators cannot just alter Arbcom decisions willy-nilly according to their own interpretations. Surely such actions are reserved for this very "Clarifications" section! Whether SirFozzie's interpretation is right or wrong, it's a breach of process to go about it this way and that needs to be made clear. Gatoclass (talk) 18:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement by ChildofMidnight
Speedy close. And as a side question, how many fairies fit on the head of a pin? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement by SirFozzie
This is a rather rough situation. The case involved, Fringe Science, closed about ten days ago. Since then, AE has been flooded with the same people, who are still fighting the same wars, in the same ways. We have a user, who's openly declared that he intends to push the boundaries of his topic ban in every way, shape and form possible.

ScienceApologist knew exactly what he was doing in his edits on the article Atropa belladonna. The plant itself may not be part of a strict reading of his topic ban, since a majority of the article wouldn't be considered "fringe science". However there is two mitigating factors in this. First of all, there is no doubt that his edit (on the homeopathic use of the plant ,or supposed homeopathic use), would generally fall under his topic ban. Secondly, he had been sanctioned under the Homeopathy ArbCom case as an AE action previously for this very same article, for the very same reasons. Now, admittedly, the sanction had been placed on him by an administrator he has a good amount of antipathy towards, but there is no doubt that he knew (or should have known) that this was either a violation of his topic ban, or at the very least, something he should have gotten clarification on before doing.

I decided that a firm clarification was necessary to ensure that the boundary was made clear. I made it clear that I did not speak for the Arbitration Commitee, or any of its members (In the interests of full disclosure, I did briefly discuss the situation with one member of the Arbitration Committee, but that was little more then a "I'm sure this will be kicked up to you" notice".)

I did not block SA, although many would argue I had good reason to at this point. Instead, I issued a clarification from myself as an AE admin, to make it clear where the boundaries are, to avoid him or his supporters claiming that I had "moved the goalposts on him" if a block had occured. I submit to the Committee that this is utterly uncontroversial. I did not re-write the decision, as people above me are claiming. I logged it in a section marked "Log any block, restriction, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.". That is what I did. I stated it was an AE action, not a "Speaking for ArbCom" action.

ScienceApologist has stated in various ways that he will continue to defy his topic ban. He made a statement as an announcement on his talk page that This user ignores all arbitration rulings made about him. and '''I have decided that for the next six months, I will edit so-called "fringe science" pages to correct misspellings when I come across them. I am doing this as an act of civil disobedience. I do not believe it is WP:POINT violation because I do not believe I am disrupting Wikipedia by doing this. I also believe that I am in good standing with WP:IAR. I do believe that others will disagree with me, but I have grown past caring.''' (From AE, diff coming shortly).

I apologize to the Committee for the length of my statement, and if anyone wants to summarize, I will move the remaining part of mystatement off this page

Statement by Short Brigade Harvester Boris
The issue at hand is whether individual administrators have the authority to make interpretations of Arbcom's intent that are binding on other administrators. It is up to Arbcom to decide whether they want to allow this, but in either event they should make it clear. The specific concerns about SA's behavior should be dealt with separately after the larger issue is clarified, and there should be no sanction against the muppet Knight Batchelor for taking initiative in a gray area. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement by User:William M. Connolley
If SA corrects a spelling error (or reverts clear and blatant vandalism) on a "fringe science" article, and someone blocks him for it, that will be stupid. If he does the same, and someone reports him to AE for it, they should be cautionned for being vexatious, and blocked for repeat offences William M. Connolley (talk) 21:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement by User:MaxPont
I sometimes see other users express surprise about the fact that ScienceApologist stir up so much controversy and that they don't understand why ScienceAplogist constantly is targeted by other users in ANI, 3RR, RFA, etc. I wonder why. It is obvious that ScienceApologist is gaming the system as much as possible and expresses strong defiance against the ArbCom. I am surprised that the ArbCom tolerate this blatant challange of the authority and trust they have been given by the Wikipedia community. If the ArbCom don't make a swift and visible statement that spitting them in the face is unacceptable any troublemaker can copy this strategy and begin to ignore ArbCom rulings.

Statement by User:Abd
My conclusion from review of what SA has written about these edits is that he is deliberately pushing the edges of the topic ban, and that he's being supported in that by at least one editor. There is substantial evidence for disruptive intent. ("Harmless edits" to articles and sections covered by the ban complicate Arbitration enforcement, requiring discussion of edit content, plus SA has stated defiant intent claiming WP:IAR). I have suggested how SA could make truly noncontroversial edits such that I would vigorously defend his right to improve the project in such ways, without complicating arbitration enforcement, which would be self-reversion, allowing other editors to quickly incorporate truly non-controversial edits. When we topic-ban an editor, we lose something (possibly valuable contributions), and we only do it when it's considered necessary to avoid disruption. Here, disruption is being created, with the assistance of Hipocrite, who reverted the allegedly harmless edits, took matters to AE without necessity, and filed this request for clarification. I urge the committee to take this seriously, and to order the ban to be enforced strictly, but excluding edits promptly self-reverted or simply proposed in Talk. I will provide diffs for what I have asserted here in the collapse section below. --Abd (talk) 17:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm practicing civil disobedience.

I think it's time for a test case.

''Bans are legitimate only inasmuch as the community has abandoned WP:IAR, which, I believe, they have. What I believe this will comes down to is punishing people for correcting misspellings.''
 * Note that the community wasn't "punishing people for correcting mispellings." The problem with the minor corrections wasn't raised by general community members, who were mostly counseling ignoring these edits, but by SA's supporter, with SA's consent, to test the limits.

If the community doesn't want to enforce a topic ban, is it really a topic ban?
 * SA knows that if minor corrections can be made, as if there were no ban, the toe is in the door.

I will continue to edit fringe science articles to improve them to protest the idiocy of arbcom as an object-lesson in how irrelevant and out-of-touch they are.

This user ignores all arbcom rulings.

''I have decided that for the next six months, I will edit so-called "fringe science" pages to correct misspellings when I come across them. I am doing this as an act of civil disobedience. I do not believe it is WP:POINT violation because I do not believe I am disrupting Wikipedia by doing this. I also believe that I am in good standing with WP:IAR. I do believe that others will disagree with me, but I have grown past caring.''
 * If he believed that the edits were not disruptive, the ensuing flap, with multiple AE reports and this clarification request, should be ample evidence to the contrary.

SA has stated that he's practicing "civil disobedience." Those who do so know it is disruptive, and they expect to be arrested. Accordingly, even though normally SA would not have been blocked for minor technical ban violations that were truly non-controversial, some of the edits weren't so innocent,(see edit summary) and given the manifest disruptive intent, he should be short-blocked to confirm that ArbComm sanctions will be enforced, and he should be warned that continued violations, even if merely "technical," will result in further action. It is not about spelling.

(A self-reverted, non-disruptive edit should not considered violation, but merely a more efficient "proposed edit" than if in Talk, and any editor, taking responsibility, can then implement in seconds.) --Abd (talk) 04:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I am seeing it asserted here, on User talk:ScienceApologist, and elsewhere, that SA was blocked and a ban seems to have passed because of harmless, helpful edits to articles. However, if the evidence I presented above is reviewed, the conclusion is inescapable that these "harmless" edits were intended to attack the topic ban by interpreting as mindless, testing it, then going to Arbitration Enforcement and here with complaints. The goal of these edits was not good spelling, but disruption. Too many editors have failed to notice that this request for clarification was filed by the editor who also reverted the small edits, claiming that they violated the ban, and who also filed the AE notices. That editor is a supporter of ScienceApologist, and an opponent of the ban, and they were clearly cooperating in this effort, as the evidence shows; alternatively, this editor did believe that the ban, even though a terrible idea, should be respected, but SA obviously was pleased that his testing of the ban is being noticed. Then, after the fully expected disruption occurs, it's again asserted that the edits are harmless. That so many editors have fallen for this trap demonstrates how "sectarian affiliation" can corrupt our thinking.

To nail this down, SA contemptuously rejected suggestion that he could indeed make those harmless edits, quickly, and with much more overall efficiency than the permitted Talk page edits. The reason is obvious: this would require voluntary cooperation with the ban, in order to improve the project in spite of it. SA can still improve the project, even if blocked, if that's his goal. I won't detail how unless someone asks. Too many words already. --Abd (talk) 13:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement by User:Protonk
Abd has a point. There is a problem when a user violates the spirit of a topic ban by making innocuous edits (or, more accurately, edits which would be innocuous if made by any other user) which has the apparent effect of forcing administrators to ignore the topic ban (and weaken it in practice) or enforce it by blocking an editor for innocuous edits.

We can't know science apologist's state of mind, so we don't know if this is testing the water, practicing civil disobedience, or simply the course of normal editing by an editor with a powerful routine. As a practical matter, there isn't a difference.

We should not treat this as a discipline problem where we punish science apologist for flouting the topic ban, but we also shouldn't lift the topic ban on the premise that his 'good' edits within the topic area have made the band absurd. We should simply reassert the ban and expand it, and simplify its enforcement. If the previous band allowed him to edit science related articles linked to pseudoscience only peripherally, the new ban should just limit him to articles unrelated to science at all. Just say that if it is in the Science, math or medicine portals, he can't edit it, for any reason. If he violates it, then someone sends an email to the arbcom list and he gets blocked by an arb on behalf of the committee (To avoid any Giano style wheel warring shenanigans).

That solution is unpleasant for a number of reasons. It puts pressure on the arbs, of whom there are far fewer than they are admins watching AE. It broadly (and probably unfairly) restricts science apologist. It opens the door for other topic ban considerations.

But it avoids the appearance of a non-binding remedy. It avoids the inevitable spiral that flouting with topic bans brings. And it avoids the drama around blocking and reblocking a member of the community about whom many admins have strong feelings (whether they know it or not). Or, to be more fair to him, it is less that we have strong feelings about him and more that his struggle represents the balance in the encyclopedia as a whole between openness and rigor; between allowing cranks and banning dissent. In cases like that, the community becomes a relatively poor judge of conduct and the committee must step in.

Statement by User:Badger Drink
As everybody knows, an encyclopedia is a place where everybody feels welcomed at all times. If unrepentant tyrants of fact and the scientific method persist in their disruptive efforts to introduce and/or maintain an academically honest, intellectually valid tone to articles on fringe subjects, then these folk need to be shown the door. If they are so devoted to the scientific method, perhaps they can congegrate in a place that dedicates itself to pursuit of knowledge over whimsy - perhaps via brief written pieces - as comprehensive as possible whilst remaining focused and direct - dedicated to individual subjects. We can only hope that these heartless monsters, void of even a hint of sympathy for alternative flim-flammery, have not the unmigitated audacity to call that project an "encyclopedia". --Badger Drink (talk) 09:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement by User:Verbal
Yes, let's ban someone for improving the project. This ban will show how well ArbCom is functioning. Verbal  chat  10:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement User:Deacon of Pndapetzim
I hope the Committee will use this clarification request to tighten the wording of the ruling and support SirFozzie's action. The wording of the ruling was little less than an open invitation to gaming and a recipe for confusion. If you set that kind of thing up, you gotta give the people you expect to enforce it leeway to uphold the ruling's spirit. SirFozzie's action was an attempt to do this. In my case, I wasn't quite sure the clarification would "stick", and added my support so that it might. If SirFozzie wished to be more judicious, he could have used Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy and placed any restriction to the same effect. So it'd be the same, whether or not the Fringe science case explicitly ruled on discretionary powers.

SA was going out his way to exploit the wording to maximum effect. It's despiriting to see arbitrators actually debating the meaning of their own decision before they actually made it. I'd suggest this is a product of the propose and rush decision making process the ArbCom decided for some obscure reason was best way to do such things. There is a chance here for the Committee either to undermine SirFozzie or else reaffirm SirFozzie's good faith attempt to deal with this issue. It would be best if they did the latter.

... And also, it'd probably be good if -- for the sake of clarity -- one of the arbs launched a motion tightening the wording in the ruling. We're here now anyway. :) Note also that the wording is, I suspsect, particularly unclear to admins with a non-scientific background. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 23:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Queries about sanction proposals
@ John Vandenberg
 * 1) "Any instances of misbehaviour during this three month period will be dealt with by an indefinite ban at the discretion of an individual arbitrator."
 * This would take it out of the community's hand. Is this intended?

@ all
 * 2) "for the avoidance of any doubt, a topic ban means 'entirely prohibited from editing articles within the topic'"
 * This doesn't clear it up. It is still unclear if edits about fringe science in articles not necessarily within the fringe science topic count. Also, remember not all admins are scientists who'll know what ... plants [for instance] are and are not subject to fringing.


 * 3) "Requests by ScienceApologist for clarifications of whether articles are within scope are to be made by him to the Arbitration Committee by email."
 * How would an AE admin know of these clarifications? They would need to know if they're expected to enforce the ruling, surely.

Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 04:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC) Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 04:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement by User:Stephan Schulz
This is an amazing failure of ArbCom so far. Yes, SA is brusque. But he is an overall positive force for the project. Escalating and increasingly shrill punitive sanctions are not appropriate. As with the old ArbCom before the recent election, the main interest here does not appear finding a good solution that allows SA to resume productive editing, but to uphold the authority of the Committee no matter what. But real authority does not derive from process and the exercise of power, but from wise or at least well-considered decisions. This one does not work. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not surprised to be honest. The longest block he ever had was 96 hours, and we're suddenly talking about 3 month and 6 month bans. I guess those who support motion 1 have a lot of private evidence to justify this. But then...there is nothing private about this; I guess they wanted to keep MaxPont happy (see also his statement above). Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * Recuse, will be making a statement.--Tznkai (talk) 15:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, thanks for bringing it to our attention SirFozzie, clarification will be forthcoming. I was concerned this may happen. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Recuse - Tiptoety  talk 00:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * As stated on the proposed decision page, I have recused on issues relating to ScienceApologist because of his role in helping set up the New York meet-ups and Chapter meetings. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Recused. --Vassyana (talk) 21:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * First, the clarification proper: the topic ban is primarily meant to include article whose primary topic is fringe science and pseudoscience. The notation that the topic area is to be "broadly construed" is exactly that &mdash; the topic is off-limits for edition by ScienceApologist.  This does not mean that every article that discuss fringe science incidentally or passingly are under the ban, but the sections or passages which do are covered.  The ban isn't meant to include or exclude specific articles but a topic, wherever in articles it may be found. Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, the restriction is meant to prevent ScienceApologist from interacting in topic areas where he has already shown difficulty maintaining the appropriate decorum, and where his interactions with other editors have been antagonistic and destructive.  Editing around the spirit of the restriction by making minor or trivial edits in banned topic is a deliberately provocative maneuver of the kind that has been warned against in general.  Such edits are not acceptable, despite the legalistic rationalization proffered (indeed, the invocation of WP:IAR is particularly egregious given that ignoring the behavioral community rules is what caused the sanction to be applied in the first place).  ScienceApologist would do well to remember that the topic ban was implemented as a last resort to allow an otherwise good editor to continue contributing in areas where he is not so prone to cause disruption and drama&mdash; and that absent serious intent to correct the behavioral problems the only recourse left to the committee is the regrettable option of excluding him from participation entirely.  I am dismayed and disappointed by his stated intent to ignore the restriction and am forced to remind him that this will inevitably result in a complete ban unless he changes tack immediately.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 23:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well said Coren.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 01:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In my view, Sir Fozzie's clarification should not have been done as an Arbitration Enforcement action and logged at the case page, but should have been filed here as a request for the arbitrators to make the necessary clarification. Having said that, I would endorse such a clarification, as my comment at the section on the proposed decision page should make clear. i.e. The restriction should apply to any fringe science topic in any article. I will repeat here what I said there: "Am supporting this because the previous behaviour for which ScienceApologist was sanctioned persists. If ScienceApologist can follow these conditions, can edit 'fringe science' talk pages civilly and productively, and work productively on other articles for six months, then a return to editing fringe science articles would be possible. If the behaviour persists on other articles, I would support extending the topic ban to other areas. Carcharoth (talk) 00:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)" To expand on that: I supported the topic ban of ScienceApologist in the hope that he would restrict himself to civil and collaborative talk page edits regarding fringe science topics and articles, and would also work on other articles (such as physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy and so on - there are a wealth of science articles out there that ScienceApologist could usefully edit). ArbCom cannot force people to move away from a contentious area and contribute in different areas, but if someone does persistently edit disruptively and tendentiously in the same area (and this doesn't just apply to ScienceApologist, but to others as well), then they are verging on becoming a disruptive single-purpose account. If ScienceApologist and others are only interested in editing fringe science and related articles, and are only here to fight over the articles without engaging in productive and collaborative editing, then they need to be fully topic banned, and blocked if they persist in such behaviour. Administrators should still use their judgment though - correction of typos, for example, can be ignored, and administrators should be able to judge when the line is crossed between helpful edits and engaging in disruption. Carcharoth (talk) 14:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Enough said by Coren and Carcharoth. --  FayssalF   -  Wiki me up®  23:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Coren hit the nail on the head. If this continues a ban will be in order, quite simply. As Carc said as well, an admin cannot unilaterally change the meaning of a case. Wizardman  03:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * An addendum that I meant to write in earlier,but didn't: when I voted to support the topic ban, it was meant to be a topic ban. Fixing typos is blatantly trying to "slightly violate" it so that those that support SA can say "Oh, he was only correcting typos" when it was pretty clear that it was at best testing whether or not we were going to follow though on it. Not sure how my fellow arbs interpreted it when they supported, but when I see a topic ban, then the party better not be editing that topic, i don't care what the edit is. Wizardman  02:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The decisions of the Committee will often need to be interpreted by admins acting at arbitration enforcement, or some other relevant venue. It's entirely reasonable, and indeed desirable, for admins to be making note of the way that they are interpreting decisions when they take enforcement actions under them. However, SirFozzie's posting here had the potential for confusion, because of the use of the word "clarification", which is also used by the Committee for its requests for clarification process. Stating that he was making a note of his interpretation would have avoided the confusion. As to the substance of SirFozzie's interpretation, I agree with it.
 * On the related matter of ScienceApologist's ban, there seems to be some confusion, for some unknown reason. Under the ban, ScienceApologist "is banned from editing any article relating to fringe science topics, broadly construed, for a period of six months." There are no exceptions. If an article relates to fringe science topics (whether this condition is met is a matter for the enforcing admin, or the consensus among enforcing admins where more than one admin is involved) then ScienceApologist may not edit it. Simple as that. --bainer (talk) 14:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * @Deacon of Pndapetzim, your second and third concerns apply to both motions 1 and 1.1. I do see room for further clarification with those, however my motion begins with three month of restricted editing, meaning we have time to work out the details on the topic ban that will follow.  With regard to motion 1.1, the indefinite ban option would be in the hands of the committee.  The community could still issue blocks of suitable durations as before, to deal with any arising issues quickly. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for general clarification
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)

Statement by Hipocrite
The comittee did not adress clearly enough if it was appropriate for an admin to "clarify" ArbCom rulings by stating they were taking an enforcement action and then detailing their "clarification" on the arbitration page. Is this an appropriate action in the general case, or are clarifications to ArbCom rulings which change the wording of the rulings (as opposed to interpretations, which do not change the wording of rulings) only to be made by the comittee?


 * I agree with Arb Coren, below. Hipocrite (talk) 13:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Ryan Postlethwaite
Hipocrite needs to stop beating a dead horse. The committee said what SirFozzie did was correct and individual arbitrators also stated that his interpretation was the correct one. It's therefore clear to just about everyone that SirFozzies "clarification" would be a good statement to look at when thinking of applying sanctions to SA in the future.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 13:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Short Brigade Harvester Boris
The ruling had bred a pushmi-pullyu: on the one hand the committee states "formal clarifications are best articulated by the Arbitration Committee and may be sought by a request for clarification," but on the other hand commends SirFozzie for issuing a "clarification" (his original term) on his own initiative. Such ambiguity tends to cause problems down the road. Arbcom could resolve this by clearly stating that SirFozzie was OK in this case because the policy was unclear, but in the future admins should not issue "clarifications" on their own initiative. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Abd
If I'm correct, SirFozzie stated his own interpretation of the existing ban. If that had changed the ban, it would have been improper. If it had been proposed as a rule that other admins must follow, likewise. But for an admin to state how he interprets a ban, and thus how he would enforce it, is simply disclosure. It's not necessary to go to ArbComm to state how one is going to interpret the ban. If someone doesn't like it, it can be discussed, and only if there isn't ready agreement does an RfAr/Clarification become necessary. SirFozzie's interpretation was not a "formal clarification" and it had no binding power.

The ban, in fact, was not unclear in substance, it was deliberately broad, and if not for the tendency of certain editors to jump to AN/I or ArbComm when they disagree with something, there would have been little disruption. I was taken to AE by the editor who filed this RfAr, and the one that ended up with a ban on SA, based on a totally bogus claim I was harassing ScienceApologist, immediately after he asked me to stop (to stop what I wasn't doing), and before I had any opportunity to respond. SA is now blocked in a way that is directly connected to the actions of this editor, and if there is anything to look at here, it would be his behavior. However, controlling point: no due process, no attempts to resolve a dispute (what dispute?) at a lower level than ArbComm, and no emergency. The request should be quickly declined, before we get even more disruption. --Abd (talk) 15:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment by GRBerry
Since everyone seems to agree that Sir Fozzie's "clarification" was actually an "interpretation", would someone just go change the word each time it appears in Requests for arbitration/Fringe science (section title and two other places). I'd do it myself but that would create more useless drama given past history. GRBerry 18:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I thought the second and third motions did clarify this, but just to make things clear:
 * Administrators doing enforcement are allowed and encouraged to interpret the remedy as applicable. In particular, remedies worded to give leeway are meant to be tweaked to context (such as "construed broadly", "at discretion", etc).
 * Administrators are also expected to make that interpretation clear, and making that explanation conspicuous is a valuable tool to do so.
 * The log of enforcement is probably not the best place to do so, and in any case cannot change the wording of a committee decision without the assent of the committee. Changes that, in the opinion the the admins, should be done to the actual wording of the decision (as opposed to its interpretation) should normally be done here in a clarification request.
 * In context, then, SirFozzie did a reasonable interpretation but "published" it in such a way as to inadvertantly make it unclear that it was an interpretation and not an actual modification of the remedy. There was obviously no foul there, but the committee has reiterated the correct procedure.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 13:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I will repeat what I said in the previous request for clarification: "The decisions of the Committee will often need to be interpreted by admins acting at arbitration enforcement, or some other relevant venue. It's entirely reasonable, and indeed desirable, for admins to be making note of the way that they are interpreting decisions when they take enforcement actions under them. However, SirFozzie's posting had the potential for confusion, because of the use of the word 'clarification', which is also used by the Committee for its requests for clarification process. Stating that he was making a note of his interpretation would have avoided the confusion. As to the substance of SirFozzie's interpretation, I agree with it." To that I would merely add that interpretation is a matter for consensus among the enforcing administrators, and where consensus cannot be reached, or where there is some doubt or ambiguity, a request for clarification should be made to the Committee. As to SirFozzie's posting, it seems that the interpretation note has been removed anyway, so that issue is moot. --bainer (talk) 22:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Not commenting on the specific case of ScienceApologist, but some thoughts in general:
 * Administrators should try to interpret our decisions reasonably, taking into account the wording of the specific remedy as well as its underlying scope and purpose;
 * Arbitration discussion on the /proposed decision page or elsewhere on the case pages may sometimes provide guidance as to what was intended, if it is unclear;
 * Where an editor may have been relying in good faith on an interpretation of the ruling that differs from that of an administrator on AE, the circumstance may call for a warning that the ruling has been misconstrued, rather than an immediate block or pageban;
 * The committee unanimously observed in the Zeq-Zero0000 case that "an administrator or other editor who takes an action in reliance on a good-faith, reasonable interpretation of an Arbitration Committee decision should not be subject to sanction for that action";
 * Where there is disagreement on how a ruling might best be interpreted, the issue can be discussed on AE or another appropriate page;
 * Where there is continued disagreement or the ruling is unclear on its face, a request for clarification can be filed on this page; Alternatively, although one arbitrator cannot speak for the committee, in certain circumstances it can be helpful to ask the arbitrator who drafted the decision for his or her view;
 * If possible, interested editors should review proposed decisions before they are finalized, and use the talkpage to alert the arbitrators to potential ambiguities at that time, thereby avoiding later disputes. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Was about to suggest what GRBerry said, but I see Jehochman has commented out SirFozzie's clarification (rather than remove it entirely). On reflection, that is probably for the best, as my current view is that using words like "clarification" creates potential for confusion. I also think that such interpretations should only be logged at the case pages if an actual action has been taken. Merely stating what one admin's interpretation is of a remedy, doesn't really count as an enforcement action. If an admin needs to explain a block or warning carried out under the terms of a remedy, then that is the point at which to explain their interpretation. Carcharoth (talk) 08:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

=Motions= Passed motions are recorded on the main case page at first clarification. diff - Mailer Diablo 17:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Request to amend prior case: Fringe science
Permanent link Initiated by  GregJackP   Boomer!    at 13:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Principle 1: Relevant comparisions
 * 2) Principle 2: Citations
 * 3) Finding 1: ScienceApologist
 * 4) Remedy 1: ScienceApologist topic banned


 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
 * (initiator)


 * Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
 * (diff of notification of this thread on ScienceApologist's talk page)

Amendment 1

 * Requests for arbitration/Fringe science
 * Clarification that a significant minority view (see WP:UNDUE) is not WP:FRINGE if one can identify prominent adherents, such as scientists Anthony Watts, Richard Lindzen, Patrick Michaels or any of the ones listed at List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming indicate that there is a significant minority or in some cases an "Alternative theoretical formulations" as noted in the WP:NPOV/FAQ and are not WP:FRINGE. The statement in a previous ArbCom case that ScienceApologist was involved in, Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience, may be appropriate with little to no modification.

Statement by GregJackP
ScienceApologist views all dissent from the consensus scientific view as WP:FRINGE. An article on a book was nominated and assessed for GA status, passing here. Within 24 hours, ScienceApologist began an individual reassessment with an edit summary of "to fail." In numerous comments, ScienceApologist misapplies WP:FRINGE, analyzing the science that the book is written about instead of the book. See, and. In addition, ScienceApologist equates skepticism with denialism, as shown ,

Comment by MastCell
Greg's definition of "fringe" doesn't seem right. AIDS denialism is a fringe view by any reasonable definition; yet I can easily name prominent adherents, including a member of the National Academies of Science, a Nobel Prize winner, and a former head of state. That makes it a notable fringe view. MastCell Talk 22:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Statement by ScienceApologist (1)
Content ruling, beyond arbcom remit. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Amendment 2

 * Requests for arbitration/Fringe science
 * Clarification that citations need to actually state what they are purported to represent and say.

Statement by GregJackP (2)
ScienceApologist has misrepresented what references actually state, and has misrepresented that the articles referenced are peer-reviewed when they are not. See below, Statement by GregJackP (3) for diffs and details.

Statement by ScienceApologist (2)
Statement by GregJackP that I "misrepresented what references actually state" and "misrepresented that the articles referenced are peer-reviewed when they are not" are both disputed by myself. No amendment of this sort is necessary.

Amendment 3

 * Requests for arbitration/Fringe science
 * ScienceApologist has misapplied WP:FRINGE and has misrepresented sources to at least one article, continuing to edit aggressively from a WP:POV position, in spite of earlier sanctions and despite having been cautioned to: "to respect all policies and guidelines," he has attempted to insert negative information into a BLP.

Statement by GregJackP (3)
ScienceApologist inserted negative BLP information, stating that 3 references were peer-reviewed and that they stated that Anthony Watts was a global warming "denialist" when the references (,  and  (I can forward the last one to any ArbCom member that does not have access to this journal)) stated "skeptic" and were not peer-reviewed articles. He continues to assert that they are peer-reviewed and say denialist even when it is pointed out to him by Marknutley, by GregJackP , by Slowjoe17 (as BLP vio, ), by NuclearWarfare  , and by Polargeo.
 * Part mentioning me struck. I was only seeking clarification on the issue; I didn't get a chance to look into the issue fully.  NW  ( Talk ) 22:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Clarification on my post re NW: the diff was to illustrate that you read the 3rd ref, did not see any evidence of Watts being labeled a "denialist" and asked ScienceApologist to clarify where it came from. It was not meant to indicate that you warned him nor that you took any administrative actions against him.   GregJackP   Boomer!   23:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Statement by ScienceApologist (3)

 * 1) Claims of a BLP-violation seem specious since there is currently acknowledgment on the talkpage that a line identifying Anthony Watts as a denialist/skeptic/anti-environmentalist should exhist in the lead, perhaps with different wording than what I suggested. Whether inserting information that a living person is a "skeptic" or a "denialist" when sources are provided to that effect is a content dispute: beyond arbcom remit.
 * 2) Determining whether "skeptic" and "denialist" are synonyms or not is a content dispute beyond arbcom remit.
 * 3) Claims that the references are not peer-reviewed are subject to debate as to the strict or loose definitions of peer review within the fields of the social sciences. This discussion is not easily decided as a simple "yes" or "no". Additionally, with the sole exception of one diff from Polargeo, all the evidence above submitted is communication exclusively from editors with an acknowledged bone-to-pick with mainstream climate science and related issues. The statement made by Polargeo started a fruitful discussion on his talkpage that was resolved to my satisfaction. Discussion as to what that will ultimately entail is still ongoing. See Articles for deletion/Global warming skepticism which is a currently-active AfD on a newly created article by GregJackP who created the article to prove his point.
 * 4) All areas of dispute resolution have not been exhausted before bringing this here, and there is no indication that arbcom should get involved at this time.

ScienceApologist (talk) 21:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Amendment 4

 * Requests for arbitration/Fringe science
 * ScienceApologist should be topic banned from all articles dealing with WP:FRINGE, pseudoscience, climate change, or other areas involving minority scientific views, including related BLPs, interpreted broadly.

Statement by GregJackP (4)
It is clear based on ScienceApologist's edit history and block/sanction history that there is a problem in his view of WP:FRINGE that has resulted in a number of disruptive or BLP issues. Previous attempts to address this problem area have not been successful, as noted above. A topic ban as outlined, which can be reviewed at some point in the future, may give him time to reflect and/or seek a mentor that perhaps can help him understand these issues. Until that occurs, it is best for Wikipedia that he not edit in these areas.

Statement by ScienceApologist (4)
The topic ban in question expired on December 12, 2009.

Since then, I have been subject to zero blocks.

No arbitration enforcement whatsoever has been requested or applied to my account since then until this malformed request.

Recommend dismissal on the basis of a bad faith filing and a sanctioning of the editor who brought this malformed request for amendment to this page since Wikipedia is not a battleground.

A brief history of this conflict
Until eight days ago, I have no recollection of ever encountering GregJackP.

I criticized a review that GregJackP did of The Real Global Warming Disaster, which is a book written from the perspective of global warming denialism about the history of global warming. The reassessment was challenged by GregJackP's acknowledged IRL friend, User:Minor4th who seemed to delight in his discovery that I was sanctioned by arbcom two years ago and then went on to write a summary dissent of my review explicitly referencing this. GregJackP then took over the job of being a enforcer of his idealization of Wikipedia rules and regulations and GregJackP then explicitly threatened me with retaliation at a separate article. He then went on to poison the well on the original article.

I normally take such attacks, which are common in the areas to which I contribute, in stride. The ideological battleground mentality of certain actors in fringe science areas is inescapable, in spite of some distasteful tactics, contributions from a wide range of people can be valuable to Wikipedia. I recommend that this malformed enforcement request be summarily dismissed with a caution to GregJackP about filing frivolous enforcement requests in the future. Allowing this kind of activity will encourage a situation similar to that which existed on this page two years ago when dozens of frivolous and ultimately dismissed enforcement requests were filed against me over the period of a year.

ScienceApologist (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Further discussion
@Krill. I agree, and I have notified him of this request, but I don't know how to get him to reply here. I would note that he has made comments on Polargeo's talk page showing that he is aware of this request. GregJackP  Boomer!   01:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

@Steve Smith. How can I clarify these issues? I do not intend Amendment 1 to be in regards to content at all, nor to fix exact boundaries. I believe that ScienceApologist views anything that is not the consensus view as WP:FRINGE (based on his comments) and is applying that standard to non-science articles, such as an article on a book that happens to be critical of the science. The key factor should be if the book itself is notable, and its reception, not whether the book was reviewed by scientists or peer-reviewed journals before it can be considered notable or to meet the standards for a Good Article designation. I did not view that as a content issue, but a procedural or policy issue. On Amendment 2, no admin has taken any action, although it is a clear violation of policy on referencing, but if this should not be here, my apologies. Where would I take that issue, if this is not the right venue? I view Amendments 3 & 4 as being closely related, should I combine those into one amendment? This is the first issue that I have brought here, so if I have made an error on something, it was not intentional, nor intended to be disrespectful of your time and attention. If I can fix any of the issues to be framed in a different manner to be in compliance with your guidelines, I will be happy to do so. Regards, GregJackP   Boomer!   05:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Cardamon
As ScienceApologist is a main participant in this, Rlevse should recuse. Cardamon (talk) 09:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Statement by The Wordsmith
I would suggest that parties not bother ArbCom with this and instead head to the CC Sanctions board. That board is active until further notice. The Wordsmith Communicate 03:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Reply by ScienceApologist
When I first saw this enforcement action being developed, that's where I thought we were headed. I'm surprised it ended up here. I was going to not comment at all, but the arbitrators actually asked for a statement from me. I obliged them. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Statement by MastCell
Given ScienceApologist's lengthy history in front of the Committee, I've actually been struck by the change in his approach (for the better) in his editing over the past few months. I don't really see the grounds for imposing an editing restriction at present, particularly not the extremely broad restriction proposed by Greg. It seems to me that 90% of Greg's complaint is based on simple disagreement with SA, and the remaining 10% consists of gray areas that seem to have been resolved in any case. MastCell Talk 22:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).


 * It doesn't look like any action will be taken at this time (at least not here; there is a parallel request open at WP:GS/CC/RE). Can this be archived?  NW  ( Talk ) 23:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I'd like to see a response from ScienceApologist before we consider this further. Kirill [talk] [prof] 00:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In response to GregJackP, we'll give him a few days to make statements here. Ultimately, though, if he doesn't want to participate, we're just going to start without him, which is unlikely to be in his best interests. Kirill [talk] [prof] 01:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Recuse. Risker (talk) 01:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Amendment 1, as proposed, is a complete non-starter in my books: first, it drags ArbCom far too deep into evaluating an individual content dispute, one which we're entirely unqualified to resolve. The case already makes clear that there is a category between fringe science and majority scientific view, and an attempt to fix exactly where those boundaries are, especially with respect to a specific area of science, is beyond both our mandate and our competence.  Amendment 2 is nonsense; if a hypothetical editor is currently not adhering to that rule, which is plainly stated in policy, what reason is there to believe that that editor would suddenly start adhering to it once it was plainly re-stated by ArbCom?  I do not understand what action Amendment 3 is proposing, unless it is merely a justification for Amendment 4.  I will have to investigate Amendment 4 further before commenting, with that investigation ideally to include reading a statement from ScienceApologist on the matter. Steve Smith (talk) 03:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Waiting for response from ScienceApologist. Carcharoth (talk) 07:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree with MastCell (and take no action), but would add that ScienceApologist needs more than anything else to rein in any aggressive aspects to his postings. If he finds himself being annoyed by what others are saying, find ways to take a break or rephrase replies. It is a fine line between strong arguments for what you are saying, and being dismissive of what others are saying. I think both ScienceApologist and GregJackP are capable of sorting things out here if they make the effort, and possibly with help from others if they continue to end up in disputes. Carcharoth (talk) 04:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Remain recused. Cool Hand Luke 14:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Recuse.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 02:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything here that requires ArbCom intervention. Issues over content should first go through lower levels of dispute resolution (and aren't likely to gain tranction at ArbCom ever); other issues seem to be requests for enforcement rather than something that would require amending a case. Shell   babelfish 20:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I am going to decline these amendments, that no action needs to be taken at this time, and agree with Carcharoth about the suggestion on how this should go. SirFozzie (talk) 15:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with my colleagues that intervention by the committee at this time would not be useful. &mdash; Coren (talk) 00:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Fringe theories/Arbitration cases
Request archived here. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 12:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Amendment request: Fringe science (October 2021)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by DGG at 16:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science
 * Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science
 * Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science
 * Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science


 * List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)


 * Information about amendment request
 * Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science
 * To the clause In this ruling, the term "fringe science" refers to matters which purport to be science, or use its trappings and terminology but are not usually regarded as such by the general scientific community; and to matters which do not claim to be scientific but nevertheless make claims that are normally considered within the purview of science. should be added "This should be interpreted according to the community guideline at WP:FRINGE''


 * Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science
 * Replace the statement Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. should be replaced by '' Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, but material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas." in order to match the guideline at WP:FRINGE


 * Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science
 * Add a clause: ''In particular,   WP:NPOV requires that  High-quality sources should not be excluded from articles purely on the basis of the viewpoint they represent. Discussions of the quality of sources must not take account of what viewpoint they represent.   Likewise, WP:V requires that every statement in an article be directly supported by a reliable source. Material must not be included in articles only on the basis of communicating the "correct" view, if it is not supported by the sources it cites."


 * Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science
 * Add a clause: Fringe political, social, and religious views are not part of science. The above definitions do not apply.  The  fundamental policies  WP:NPOV and WP:V do apply ; in particular,   WP:NPOV requires that  sources should not be excluded from articles on the basis of the viewpoint they represent.

Statement by DGG
The reason for this request is the arguments on sources that keep occurring on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, WP:RSN, when dealing with minority views, where the arb com rulings have been used to prevent the inclusion of reasonably reputable sources. This includes among others recent discussions in the scientific areas of Covid, Race & Intelligence, Genetically modified organisms, climate change, and  various aspects of medicine, and in the areas of American and other national politics,  nationalism in different regions, and various conspiracy theories. See WP:DSTOPICS

The hope is to focus the arguments over sourcing,  decrease the need for AE and discretionary sanctions, make further requests for arbitration cases in such areas unnecessary--and possibly even reduce the need for some of the discussions and arguments that arise.

I am not necessarily saying that all of the areas mentioned should rightfully be included under WP:FRINGE; I am certainly not saying that all or most of the arb com decisions or the community decisions based on them were improper, or led to incorrect conclusions. I have been involved in many such discussions at WP:RSN and elsewhere; sometimes the views I supported have been upheld, and sometimes not. I have no intention of re-arguing any of them here, or of using this request to challenge or overturn any previous decision by arbitrators or the community. The purpose of this request is to act as a guide for future discussions. I am not naming parties, as this applies to everyone who might be working in these areas. I am notifying WP:RSN and Fringe theories/Noticeboard


 * @brady: you are being asked not to "reduce Wikipedia's dependence on academic peer-reviewed sources in fringe scientific topics by denying them priority over other sources" but by letting other sources be used to a limited extent in a proper qualified way, instead of being rejected out of hand. Rather than "denying them priority", I would say "reducing their priority when necessary for  NPOV. " I am not suggesting removing the key prnciple in the case Scientific focus: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and its content on scientific and quasi-scientific topics will primarily reflect current mainstream scientific consensus.
 * @Sowhy, About half the arb com decisions  have been indirect rulings on content  This is to some extent inevitable because content disagreements are   at the root of most of WP's long standing disputes   Every case dealing with ethnic or nationalist issues is at heart a dispute over content, carried out by attacking sourcing.  I certainly was aware of the content implications of the cases in my 5 years, and I think other arbs were also.  One tries to not let it over-influence one's decision, but an awareness is always in the background.
 * @David Gerard, re-analyzing all of the fringe-related disputes at RSN over the last 12 years would take many times my 1000 words; even just discussing the other fringe-related arb cases would; and the responses of everyone interested in all of them would make a discussion here totally impossible.  That's why I decided to keep this as general as possible, and why I decided not to challenge here the results of any of the discussions..


 * Based on the comments of various arbitrators, the principles and FoFs in this case should not be used to justify actions regarding individual articles or sources. However, @brady has also commented that they would want to see how these changes would affect particular controversies, which implies they are authoritative principles . Perhaps this should be treated as a request for clarification?  Perhaps it would be a good idea to clarify in arb policy that the statements in any one case apply to that particular case only, but not to any future instance involving the same principles. But presumably that would only apply to decisions not resulting in DS or similar sanctions about specific articles and topics--since in such cases  the principles and FoF are specifically or implicitly used as the basis for the sanctions.  Is that the intended meaning?    DGG ( talk ) 01:32, 22 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Would it help if the wording didn't say Non-academic, but minority academic?  DGG ( talk ) 05:19, 22 October 2021 (UTC)


 * @Barkeep49: To a considerable degree, you are right. What is said by arb com doesn't always necessarily make a difference in how things work, any more than does the wording of policy and guidelines. People do quote what they want, and interpret it however they want. The only thing that actually matters in the end is what gets decided in individual instances about individual articles, and that tends to be quite variable.    (I've said myself that for many articles at AfD, I could equally well make a policy-based argument to keep or delete), PerhapsI should have continued my usual course, which is to concentrate patiently on these.
 * There is a reason I went back to this case from 12 ago: it has been the basis of most decisions in the general area since then. Checking User:Bradv/Arbitration cases by creation date there were earlier ones, but what may be the first Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Neuro-linguistic programming (2005), is from just before my time in WP. In 2005-07 WP was contending with the pushers of some really absurd doctrines--see in particular Requests for arbitration/Paranormal (2007), which I do recall. A rather strict adherence to rules for  sourcing was justified, though  I remember even then saying how they could potentially be misused. . More recently, we know how to deal with the really strange conspiracy theories that arise, and arguments have usually concerned matters where the minority view has some degree of rational support--very small in some cases, but still within the bounds of the rational.  I think with these the approach needs to be different--to be quite inclusive with both topics and sources ,while still avoiding veering off into nonsense. At RFCs at RSN, a majority does in practice have the power to shut out the views of a minority, and at AE it is very difficult to over-rule  admins willing to remove editors of whom they disapprove; we need to at least specify some limits, even though we realize we can not fully enforce them.  DGG ( talk ) 08:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Without going into the specifics of individual sources, the material cited by Ferahgo is a clear recent indication of my key points here : the error of narrow restrictions on sourcing, and the error  of too broad an application of fringe to cover minority viewpoints. It also raises another issue I intended to deal with separately,  the danger of how wording of  arb com decisions can be used by individual admins at DS. It additionally shows the extreme risk to NPOV from  the decision of arb com in their most recent case WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Iranian politics, whereby DS   may include ... moratoriums up to one year on initiating RfCs on a particular dispute, which can prevent reconsideration of even the most biased closure. (as written it would seem to apply only to that case, but some arbs have said they would like to have it as a general rule, or that it already is a general rule). See WT:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Iranian_politics/Proposed_decision and User_talk:Barkeep49 .   DGG ( talk ) 22:29, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I notice that, referring to the Principles and FoF under discussion, @Worm says that it   may not reflect the current state of the encyclopedia   while @Captain Eek says "Seeing as these   have stood for over a decade, it appears they were correct and factual.  ". It seems to me that those two statements are contradictory. There is not necessarily anything wrong or surprising in that-- there have always been disagreements, as any examination of proposed decisions will show.  Perhaps @Barkeep's  statement is correct that It only has weight if other people agree it does'
 * So far we've heard from 7 arbs--- it might be helpful if the other 8 were to give their opinion also. -DGG


 * Since it seems there are unlikely to be further developments, and sentiment seems clear, I'm withdrawing the request
 * In conclusion, I thought there was a chance this request might succeed, but from my knowledge or arb com I did not think it very likely--I've been a minority of one when I was a member several times. What I do hope is that it may lead other people here to reconsider the questions. Normally I work by trying to affect opinion in individual cases, not general proposals like this; I fail to win many of the cases, but opinion nevertheless shifts. That's what I am trying to accomplish here also.  DGG ( talk ) 06:30, 27 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Replying to 's request : There are 5 recent situations that might make good examples, all of which the committee has had before it in some manner.
 * 1.Arbitration/Requests/Case/COVID-19 which was closed by motion without any attempt whatsoever to address  the problem, except a reference to an earlier general ruling on Covid dealing appropriately with the non-scientific theories put forth by far-right sources. (As a result, I haven't the least idea of the views of arb com on the matters raised.)  The problem is  adequately discussed in the case statements, and epitomized by Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis, but I can summarize them as Consensus has changed and what was originally a  far fringe theory from sources associated with conspiracy theories, became one seriously considered by both the medical establishment, and the most reliable possible news sources (WSJ, NYT--in a series of major articles). Various excuses where put forth for not covering it until it had been resolved by peer-reviewed medical sources in the future.  This was a classic example of attempts to hide a minority view by over-strict interpretation of sourcing requirements. It differs from most similar cases in that I am unable to imagine any possible  Real World motivation for the rigidity (except, conceivably, support for the PRC and its censorship apparatus, but I very much doubt that) See also  . This was also extensively discussed at,  [Wikipedia talk:Biomedical information], and an RfC  where it was at least decided that history is not subject to MEDRS. (this entire series of discussions is marked by  attempts to decide the scientific issue on a WP talk page based on OR from the  primary sources.)
 * 2)Race and Intelligence, adequately discussed below by Ferahgo --see Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence This is similar to Covid, in that the difficulty is that Consensus has changed in the RW, but complicated by the discussions involving charges of racism. There's an understandable sensitivity to the horrific history of the misuse of this combination of concepts in the past (and in some circles, extending into the present). This can be seen as some explanation for the refusal to reconsider, though I do not consider this a reason to abandon NPOV.
 * 3) American Politics, (too many links to quote here) where the bias in our coverage has been widely noticed outside WP. (again, too many links, but can be given if it becomes relevant) (This is a little complicated for me, because I agree very strongly politically with the side to which our coverage has been biased.  I have argued on the basis that the best way -- and the only way compatible with nPPOV-- to show the absurdity and evil of the other side, is to let its proponents speak,, and that the  refusal to do so indicates a fear that the other side might have a convincing argument if they were allowed to. Suspicion that this might be our motive would cause anyone not yet convinced of either side to distrust our coverage, and to consider it just an editorial.)
 * 4) and 5) I could also mention Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort and Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine, where the committee resolved   questions of content by topic banning the principal advocate(s) on one side of the position, while simultaneously stating that "it is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors." (I should mention that I personally agree very strongly with the eventual result in one of the cases)
 * How this should proceed--whether by arb cases, or otherwise, is clearly beyond my ability to resolve. I thought it could be done  by attacking  what I consider the root of the problem, but the consensus seems to be that this was far too general an approach.
 * If there are to be proceedings on any one of the individual matters, I see no real need to deal with the Covid matter, for the consensus seems to have turned; if Ferahgo would like to proceed on R&I I think she has a very strong case, but handling it would be up to her, for she knows the state of the scientific literature better than I do; American Politics will surely come before the committee again at next year's midterm election, and then at the presidential election next following; the other matters have been settled for the time being. My inclination would be to wait until the next time we encounter an attempt to manipulate the rules on reliable sources so that Wikipedia reflects what used to be academic view in the past,  or what some people would otherwise prefer to imagine as the NPOV.
 * As for me, I will do as I said a few paragraphs earlier, return to dealing with individual articles and sources.    DGG , 28 October 2021


 * I wasn't going to say anything more, but since asks, rather than use a vague term such as "believe",  I know  that it is impossible that there is any  phenotype whatsoever of any living organism  which is not subject to genetic selection, and consequently I know that all characteristics will be influenced by genetics. The real questions for any characteristic, for all living beings whatsoever, are to what extent there is a genetic influence, how exactly  the influence works in terms of the physiology,  and how it interacts with environment--these questions constitute the subject of biology.  In the case of humans, or other social animals, this includes the social environment. In the case of humans, distinctively, it also includes the cultural environment, and these aspects  constitute the social sciences. The only way it could be otherwise is if evolution does not apply to humans. There are those who do think so, and they are the true fringe. DGG ' , 29 October 2021
 * To avoid confusion, I should add that of courss "race" iscomposed of more than bioloical phenotypes. But it is the ability to define he part that is biological phenotypes that's particular relevant to Ferrango's discussion. And a refusal to admit possibilities from new knowledge seems to be a common thread here. `` -- DGG ( talk ) 00:26, 1 November 2021 (UTC).

Statement by Alexbrn
I don't think arbcom should have jurisdiction over content decisions, so the current ruling is an unfortunate artefact from the past. Revoking it may, however, give the impression that somehow restrictions are being lifted. The proposed amendment looks even worse, in that in some respects it seems to want to make an end-run around core policy. In particular, for fringe topics the proposed text "WP:NPOV requires that High-quality sources should not be excluded from articles purely on the basis of the viewpoint they represent" is simply wrong, since for fringe topics WP:GEVAL has: The proposed amendment would allow the pseudoscience in apparently "high-quality" sources (e.g. peer-reviewed articles in homeopathy journals) passage into Wikipedia, or at least fuel drama over arguing for it. It is important that Wikipedia does not include fringe ideas except through the lens of accepted academic scholarship, where it exists.

If there's an issue with policy, fix the policy text. I say: don't try and provide additional layers of amendement to an area which is already plagued by WP:WL and drama. Alexbrn (talk) 17:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Your long post about 's (and other's) editing is all very interesting, but what has this to do with the proposal at hand, on amending historical arbcom rulings? What you describe seems to be a dispute in a topic area under WP:AC/DS: if editors are misbehaving there, open a WP:AE case. Alexbrn (talk) 05:53, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Pyrrho the Skeptic
the below was to respond to bradv. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 17:34, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused over point 6, because WP:MEDRS states: The popular press is generally not a reliable source for scientific and medical information in articles, but this amendment seems like it would state that popular press is fine in fringe medicine, if that same source is used for, say, politics. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

ADDING: There appears to be some conflict regarding defining "fringe theories" vs defining "quackery" in medicine. If the amendment is made to be consistent with this language from WP:FRINGE ...but material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas., then that makes sense. But then I feel like a distinction needs to be made between WP:FRINGE being applied to "fringe theories" and WP:MEDRS being applied to "quackery". Otherwise you might always have disputes with editor 1 using ArbCom/WP:FRINGE language to justify "non-academic" sources and editor 2 using WP:MEDRS to claim only peer-reviewed, medical, secondary sources be used in a given content dispute. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 18:15, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Ferahgo
This request relates to an issue that I recently discussed in general terms on the Arbcom mailing list, and also in more specific terms with Arbcom member. There are a few closely-related issues that need to be addressed, but I think this request is mostly directed at the fact that there are a few topics where journalistic sources (such as articles in newspapers and magazines) are being given priority over academic journals and textbooks. In some cases, the academic sources have been declared unreliable sources on the basis of the viewpoint they present, because they contradict the view presented in journalistic sources, which is assumed to be the mainstream one.

I am not sure what the best way to address this would be. The matter of general policy raised here needs addressing, but there is also a behavioral aspect. Over the past year or so there have been several cases of editors adding material to articles that misrepresents its sources, with the justification that WP:FRINGE requires this material to be included, and every attempt to challenge or remove the material has been rejected on the same grounds. There have been a few attempts to raise this issue with the broader community, but none of the discussions about it at noticeboards have resolved anything.

I would rather not get into specific examples, because I'd like to keep this request focused on general matters of policy, instead of specific topics. But I can provide more specific details about the background if necessary, either here or on the Arbcom mailing list (I'd prefer the latter). -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 17:45, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem is something like this: several topic areas have recently had similar problems in which WP:FRINGE has been used as a justification for ignoring other content policies, such as requiring the inclusion of material that misrepresents its sources. There are two topics in particular where this has been happening over the past year. My understanding is that in the past few months one of the two topics has improved somewhat, but the other has not.


 * I think this request ought to stay focused on general issues of policy, but I've gone into more detail in our email correspondence. As I mentioned in that correspondence, there have been multiple noticeboard discussions that tried and failed to resolve the issue, and one of the recent discussions about it concluded that it could not be resolved without Arbcom's intervention. DGG's and my hope with this request is that Arbcom could address it by addressing the policy principles, which apply to multiple topics, instead of the specifics of just one or two topics.


 * If you feel that the proposed amendment is not the best way forward, other solutions such as opening a full case with a narrower scope may be more viable. But I request that Arbcom please not pass the buck back to the community, because the community has already tried and failed to resolve this issue several times. I think you're the arbitrator who has the greatest familiarity with this background, so I'd appreciate your guidance on the best way to address it. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 20:07, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Alright. If you need specific evidence of something within Arbcom's remit, then I suppose keeping this request focused on general issues of policy won't be possible - and Generalrelative has already linked to one of the earlier discussions anyway, which makes it obvious what topic area precipitated this request. I'm going to focus on the issue of misrepresented sources here, because while it isn't the only behavioral issue in this area, it's the one where Arbcom is most likely to understand the nature of the problem.


 * 26-27 April 2020: NightHeron changes the lead of the race and intelligence article from "there is no direct evidence that these differences in test scores have a genetic component" to "there is no scientific evidence that these differences in test scores have a genetic component". On the talk page, he argues that sources aren't required for this change because the hereditarian hypothesis (that group differences include a genetic component) is classified as a fringe theory.


 * 2 May 2020: NightHeron makes the same alteration to the body of the article, changing "no direct evidence" to "no scientific evidence". In this case the original wording was supported by three sources, and NightHeron changed the text without changing the sources that it cited. "No direct evidence" had been the exact wording of the three sources cited there, or a very close paraphrase (see Gardenofaleph's summary here). This distinction between "evidence" and "direct evidence" is more than just a semantic change: for example, James Flynn's well-known book Race, IQ and Jensen contains a chapter titled "Direct evidence and indirect", in which Flynn argues that there is indirect evidence for a genetic cause, but direct evidence for an environmental cause.


 * April-May 2020: NightHeron removes most of the material from the article that had been cited to Earl B. Hunt's textbook Human Intelligence.   NightHeron and other editors justify these removals on the grounds that this book is in favor of the position that group differences in average IQ scores have a genetic component, and thus material in the book presenting this view is inadmissible.


 * June to August 2020: Generalrelative changes the wording of this part of the article article from "There is no scientific evidence that the test score gap has a genetic component" to "The current scientific consensus is that there is no evidence for a genetic component behind IQ differences between racial groups". They also add the same material to three other articles.    Finally, in the edits to Intelligence Quotient, Heritability of IQ, and Race and intelligence, they add a citation to Earl Hunt's textbook Human Intelligence for this statement.


 * Let me call attention to two things about Generalrelative's citing of Hunt's texbook for this statement. First, this is the same source that has had most of its citations removed on the grounds that it is arguing in favor of a genetic contribution. Second, earlier the same month Generalrelative had added a quote from this book saying "The argument for genetic differences has been carried forward largely by circumstantial evidence", which is obviously not the same as saying there is a consensus that no evidence exists for a genetic contribution. For the book's actual position on this question, see the quote that I posted here:


 * 13-14 March 2021: Three editors - Stonkaments, Gardenofaleph, and an IP editor - raise objections that this part of the article is not supported by its sources. However, NightHeron doesn't allow the material be modified, arguing that these editors' objections are invalid because the material is required by consensus.


 * 18-23 March 2021: Stonkaments raises the issue of these misrepresented sources at the NOR noticeboard. After about two days, JzG shuts down the discussion there. When challenged about this closure in his user talk, JzG explains that in order to raise his objection that sources are being misrepresented, Stonkaments first would have to successfully argue that the hereditarian hypothesis is not fringe, and that Stonkaments will likely be topic banned if he makes further attempts to raise the issue.


 * 1-2 May 2021: I open a RFC at the RS noticeboard about the issue of misrepresented sources, as well as the fact that older and lower-quality sources are being given priority over more recent sources of higher quality. This RFC is shut down by JzG after about 12 hours.


 * 3-5 May 2021: Shortly after the RFC has been shut down, a discussion begins about opening a new RFC which would examine this question of sourcing. However, while that discussion is still underway, NightHeron opens a new RFC on the article's talk page which avoids the question of sourcing.  He explains that he is opening this RFC in order to prevent anyone else from opening one that examines the sourcing question.


 * 9 May 2021: AndewNguyen tries to open a separate RFC to examine the sourcing question. This RFC is immediately shut down by an uninvolved user, with the explanation that it is inappropriate to open a new RFC in addition to the one that is already open.  Thus, NightHeron was successful in the strategy he described in the two comments linked above: that he could prevent the community from discussing his misrepresentation of sources by opening an RFC which avoided this question.

Something I should point out about this sequence of events is that since March 2020, the race and intelligence article has had a special restriction (implemented by you) saying that anyone who misrepresents a source will be subjected to "escalating topic bans". But no admin has been willing to enforce this restriction, and during the year and a half that it has existed, no one has ever been sanctioned under it. However, editors who tried to raise the issue of misrepresented sources have been threatened with topic bans for doing so, JzG's response to Stonkaments that's linked above being one example. In summary, this is a behavioral issue (misrepresentation of sources) that the community has persistently been unable to address, in part because the sourcing restriction that you imposed turned out to be unenforceable.

Finally, let me call attention to the previous arbitration request last year about more or less the same issue (see Literaturegeek's summary). In that discussion, user:SMcCandlish predicted that if Arbcom declined to act on the earlier request, the same issue would inevitably come back to Arbcom again. That's exactly what has happened. This time could Arbcom please deal with the issue, so that it won't have to be brought back to Arbcom a third time in 2022? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 05:41, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Would Arbcom like me to send them a scan of the relevant part of Hunt's textbook, so they can see for themselves what it says about this matter? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 03:23, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I would prefer that Arbcom deal with this issue sooner rather than later. At this point it's clear the community won't resolve it without Arbcom's intervention, so passing it back to the community again will result in it continuing to simmer there, which I agree is something that should be avoided.


 * I don't know whether it would be best for Arbcom to try to resolve it under the fringe science case or under the race and intelligence case, but your suggestion of a brainstorming session sounds like a good idea. With respect to the sourcing issue, there seems to be some ambiguity about what Arbcom considers to be within their remit. It would be best for that to be clarified before there's another arbitration request, to make sure any upcoming request will be within the scope of what Arbcom can address. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 16:30, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Statement by David Gerard
Speaking as an editor who works in WP:FRINGE-plagued areas and is a regular participant in WP:RSN: This request needs more details on precisely what requests were the issue, and precisely how the present rules resulted in a bad outcome. I recall several cases where editors brought fringe conspiracist views on COVID-19 to WP:RSN claiming that mentions in the popular press meant they belonged in more medical articles as supported views, or conversely, where questionably-reliable journals were being used to claim academic imprimatur for a fringe conspiracist view; but, rather than second-guessing the proposer's intent, I would like to know the precise difficult cases that would convince someone who thinks the present rule works very well in practice (e.g., me) that normal processes had clearly failed disastrously enough there was a problem needing action. I'm willing to be convinced, but I would have to be convinced - David Gerard (talk) 18:17, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @DGG fair enough, it just seems to me a claim that could really benefit from clear examples - David Gerard (talk) 20:34, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

additional note: in fairness, I can see a case in principle for bring the question back to the arbcom - I have referenced the arbcom decision myself in disputes over WP:FRINGE issues, to indicate the issue has teeth - David Gerard (talk) 20:37, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

another note: if this is prone to be seized upon in an attempt to relitigate the race and intelligence RFC yet again, that's an excellent worked example of why not to change anything - David Gerard (talk) 07:06, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

yeah, it looks like that's precisely what it is. I suggest closing this as a waste of everyone else's time and presumption of good faith, as jps has noted - David Gerard (talk) 16:00, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Statement by North8000
I have a sidebar but important point. Fringe is MUCH broader than fringe science (which the current scope wording pretty well defines....e.g. purports to be science...)  Introducing the much broader wp:fringe into the arbcom scope statement would make a mess out of the scope definition. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Firefangledfeathers
Has anyone at RSN ever cited the Fringe science arbitration case? I am looking for examples and finding none. WP:FRINGE is cited frequently, but I haven't found anything referencing the case and I'm 2/3 of the way through the search results. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:46, 21 October 2021 (UTC)


 * you asked "Does anyone have examples where the principles have been specifically called out in recent discussions?". DGG claims this has happened at RSN. There's plenty of evidence that this has not happened: If the principles of this old case are not being cited, what benefit could there be to changing them? On the other hand, WP:FRINGE itself is cite ubiquitously, but there's no evidence to show that debate over WP:FRINGE requires an ArbCom case. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:54, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Statement by jps
Oooh! I'm a party to the original case! Do I get extra points for that? Anyhoo... I think it best to let sleeping dogs lie. In this case, I have not seen much in the way of misuse of these particular rulings. I am actually much more concerned with Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience which has been used to tie the hands of editors over at psychoanalysis, but last I brought that up, the committee demurred for much the same rationale as they seem currently wont to offer. Fair enough. Let's preserve the history and move on. jps (talk) 22:49, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I have to say that the context that has now been provided for this request makes me feel a bit like this is a WP:GAME on the part of the requester and allies who have been collaborating both on and off-wiki apparently to win a fight. I feel a bit like our good faith has been taken advantage of. jps (talk) 12:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Generalrelative
Anyone who is perplexed by DGG's request may want to take a look at this discussion on a user talk page for background. I’ll ping Stonkaments as a courtesy since it’s their page. Generalrelative (talk) 00:00, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * At this point the only thing in Ferahgo's statement I think I need to respond to is the pronoun she uses to refer to me. They/them for me please. Happy to discuss the proper interpretation of Hunt if called upon to do so. Generalrelative (talk) 15:41, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I see that Ferahgo has now edited her statement, changing my pronoun to "they". I appreciate it, though in the future please remember to make it visible when you alter a comment that has been responded to, e.g. by striking deleted words. Generalrelative (talk) 17:30, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Since a couple of uninvolved parties here appear to give some credence to Ferahgo's accusation of misrepresentation of sources, I suppose it's time for me to state my side of things. The distinction between primary and secondary material within a single source which SMcCandlish brings up gets to the heart of the issue surrounding how to use and interpret Hunt –– which is, in turn, key to unraveling Ferahgo’s accusation. Indeed, I made a similar point on the R&I talk page almost a year ago, though any observer of this case could be forgiven for not having read through the extensive archived discussions there. The bit that Ferahgo describes as Hunt’s actual position is clearly a statement of opinion, and not even an expert opinion at that since it is a psychologist opining about what is likely to be the case in the field of genetics. As was argued on the talk page (apparently persuasively to the majority of page watchers) this makes it UNDUE for inclusion, especially if it represents a FRINGE position. On the other hand, where Hunt acts as a secondary source –– and I credit him for making the distinction relatively clear –– he indicates that no evidence has ever emerged to support the speculations of racial hereditarians. The full quote, which appears in the Hunt citation I added to a number of articles, is: It is worth remembering that no genes related to difference in cognitive skills across the various racial and ethnic groups have ever been discovered. The argument for genetic differences has been carried forward largely by circumstantial evidence. Of course, tomorrow afternoon genetic mechanisms producing racial and ethnic differences in intelligence might be discovered, but there have been a lot of investigations, and tomorrow has not come for quite some time now. The question of how to interpret this statement was thoroughly discussed by Hob Gadling, MrOllie, NightHeron, an IP, a sock of MIkemikev, Stonkaments, Gardenofaleph, Aquillion and myself, with MrOllie remarking (again, apparently persuasively to the majority) that This is scientist for 'no evidence' the same way that 'works as well as placebo' is medical researcher for 'it doesn't do anything'. After this I considered the matter essentially settled, since no new objections were ever raised, as far as I could tell –– only old ones repeated. Generalrelative (talk) 16:17, 23 October 2021 (UTC)


 * if you truly believe that the rejection of a genetic link between race and intelligence reflects what used to be academic view in the past rather than the current consensus among genetics professionals, I can see how you might believe that the snow close of the May 2021 R&I RfC must be the result of an effort to manipulate the rules on reliable sources. However nothing could be further from the case. This ought to be clear to anyone who takes the time to read through the sources that are cited in that RfC, along with the accompanying discussion.


 * I won't comment on whether another ARCA specifically on R&I would be helpful since I'm unfamiliar with the dynamics here, but I will be happy to provide a bit more of a reality check re. Ferahgo's narrative if that is deemed helpful. Addressing each of her accusations would take some time, so I'll try to pace myself as I gauge whether there is interest. For now I'll start by pointing out how demonstrably false the final allegation against NightHeron is (i.e. NightHeron was successful in the strategy he described in the two comments linked above: that he could prevent the community from discussing his misrepresentation of sources by opening an RFC which avoided this question. First of all: these comments describe nothing of the kind: . They are about preempting mischief and another complicated, tendentiously worded RfC such as Ferahgo had just been admonished for launching at RSN. The idea that these diffs present evidence for wrongdoing is preposterous. Second, Ferahgo leaves out that  raised the specific point she insists was never addressed –– that is, RfCs in the R&I topic area not addressing of the sourcing issue –– with, the uninvolved admin who shut down Andew's attempt at yet another RfC at NPOVN: User_talk:Mackensen. Mackensen’s response was definitive: after Andew cited a comment from JBL saying If there really is a fundamental issue not addressed by this RfC, then this RfC does not prevent someone from opening a proper RfC to address it,  Mackensen responded It's the clear consensus of the community that there is not such a fundamental issue, and you need to respect that.  Generalrelative (talk) 06:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)


 * As I suspected, the issue here is a simple misunderstanding on your part. As stated in the R&I FAQ, the heritability of differences between individuals and families within a given population group tells us nothing about the heritability of differences between population groups. You may find that counterintuitive, even hard to believe, and yet it is population genetics 101. See the sources cited there if you don't believe me:, . Of course this is not the place for an ongoing debate over the science, so I'd be happy to continue the discussion on my talk page if necessary. Generalrelative (talk) 14:25, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Statement by RandomCanadian
From a quick read, this looks like "overriding established policy [including NPOV] via ArbCom". Not only is this usually something entirely out of the scope of ArbCom (whether via an amendment request or otherwise), but this hasn't even been attempted through the regular channels. 's summary seems correct, and "we are being asked to reduce Wikipedia's dependence on academic peer-reviewed sources in fringe scientific topics by denying them priority over other sources" smells like an absolutely horrible idea (we really want to give equal weight to recognised experts and to Johnny Idiot writing in conspiracy theorist sham journal?) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:05, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Statement by XOR'easter
Regarding the proposed addition Fringe political, social, and religious views are not part of science: this is a highly touchy point, and a matter where lines of demarcation are difficult to draw. People advocate fringe science for political, social, and/or religious reasons; sometimes, a view could reasonably be called all of those things. I think it's a bad idea to try separating them with the force of wiki-law, as it were. Doing so would deprive editors of the freedom to address thorny questions and gray areas on a case-by-case basis as necessary.

The second bullet point proposes a modification in order to match the guideline at WP:FRINGE, but the current text seems entirely in accord with WP:FRINGE, while the replacement is less so. WP:FRINGE says, If an article is written about a well-known topic about which many peer-reviewed articles are written, it should not include fringe theories that may seem relevant but are only sourced to obscure texts that lack peer review. And, if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer reviewed journal (emphasis added). In other words, peer-reviewed articles are always to be preferred when the subject is within the purview of the regular academic literature. WP:FRINGE doesn't say material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas; it says they may be the best available option outside of these areas.

The third bullet point suggests adding the instruction Discussions of the quality of sources must not take account of what viewpoint they represent. This seems an unwarranted restriction that would, on the face of it, make many discussions at RSN invalid. Perhaps it is not always a good argument, but it is not a genre of argument that should be forbidden by wiki-law. Again, we should not deprive editors of the ability to discuss their way through gray areas on a case-by-case basis. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 02:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Szmenderowiecki
I will analyse the statements one-by-one, in some cases from a potential Wikilawyering standpoint.
 * Amendment 1. Fringe science is what I believe to be a rather obvious term that does not need additional explanation. Linking it to WP:FRINGE would actually distort the sense normally being put in these words. Since the definition goes that the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field, it has also to do with WP:DUE than simply BS science, which is how the term "fringe science" is commonly understood.
 * Amendment 2. While the additional clause makes the judgment more in line with WP:FRINGE, sort of, I side with Pyrrho the Skeptic in that additions from "fringe theories" guideline text is incompatible with "fringe science" judgment for WP:MEDRS reasons. For broad definitions of science as "knowledge about something" and not simply "hard sciences" (it seems to be the interpretation as "history" is also mentioned in the rule), there might be additional conflicts in ArbCom's rulings rising from the anti-Semitism in Poland case, or any other similar ruling where heightened requirements for sourcing have been set. Namely, the change might encourage those in the dispute in the area topics related to the area to challenge WP:APL, or any ruling with similar sourcing requirements, by citing the amended ruling and then insisting that any history article in the mass media, so long as it clears the RS bar, is permissible; thus unnecessarily escalating the case again to ArbCom, which would then have to determine which ruling is the controlling one. First, that's too much SCOTUS, too little Wikipedia; secondly, non-academic sources are a whole tier below academic ones, so we shouldn't encourage parity between the two.
 * Amendment 3. I see problems with sentence two of the addition. In some areas, it is often thanks to the viewpoint that we know that the article is of low quality (as anti-vaxxer "studies" almost always are, or, as from my edit history, studies purporting to say that the Warsaw concentration camp had a giant gas chamber that killed 200K Poles), so it might provoke an argument by which a person who might want to promote fringe views refers to the amendment and says "but hey, you only said that this paper is anti-vax but we are expressly discouraged to judge the paper only by the viewpoint of the author", which would lead to some tedious discussions about why most, or all, anti-vax papers are not acceptable. Also, from the last sentence it would appear that so long as the material is supported by sources, one can introduce whatever material communicating The Truth® (that "if" condition is problematic); but what is needed here is simply a stern warning against POV-pushing + a separate warning to correctly interpret each source at hand.
 * Amendment 4. If you remove "The above definitions do not apply" sentence, which might encourage people to promote fringe views that the filer proposes to exempt from the ruling, take into account the Amendment 3 remarks and the XOR'easter's remarks, para 1 and 3 (see section above), that might be fine, but then I'd like to see the modified proposal.

While the intent of the author is well-understood ("don't dismiss science you don't like if it is prevalent enough"), the wording weakens the sourcing requirements too much, makes the ruling incompatible with the more recent resolutions and might encourage tedious Wikilawyering disputes where there are more than enough disputes to begin with in the topic area. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 07:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Statement by NightHeron
Ferahgo has now made a series of false or misleading accusations against me and other editors (without notifying me, by the way). A year-and-a-half ago I was the OP of an RfC on Race and Intelligence at WP:FTN that was closed with a determination that racial hereditarianism (the view that certain races are genetically endowed with less intelligence than others) is a fringe view. Ferahgo is one of a small number of editors who have refused to accept that consensus and since that time have been forum-shopping in an attempt to reverse or circumvent it. After the RfC closure was upheld on appeal at AN, AndewNguyen appealed to ArbCom, making misconduct accusations against editors who'd participated in the RfC. An IP who had participated extensively in the RfC advanced an absurd conspiracy theory, accusing me of being a false-flag right-winger disguised as a left-winger in order to embarrass Wikipedia. A similar conspiracy theory is again advanced by an IP (perhaps the same one) in the user-page discussion that is linked to in Generalrelative's comment here.

This is not the place to refute all of Ferahgo's allegations claiming misuse or misrepresentation of sources. These matters have already been discussed at talk-pages, RSN, and elsewhere, and the consensus of editors has not supported those allegations (which is what Ferahgo seems to mean by saying that the community has been unable to resolve the content and sourcing issues). I'd like to just respond to Ferahgo's claim that I acted improperly in starting an RfC at the R&I talk-page in response to the claim by these editors that the outcome of the earlier RfC on R&I had been implemented wrongly, and that, if the community had only known about the nefarious way that I and others would edit the R&I page, they never would have voted the way they did. Ferahgo neglects to mention that the reason for the speedy closure of Ferahgo's RfC by an admin was that Ferahgo's RfC statement was lengthy, complicated, and tendentiously worded in an obvious attempt to skew the outcome -- in blatant violation of policy, which says that an RfC statement should be neutrally worded, short and simple. The short and neutrally worded RfC that I started at the R&I talk-page ended in a snow-close reaffirming the consensus that racial hereditarianism is a fringe POV. Both RfCs on race and intelligence had extensive participation by many editors -- over 50 in 2020 and about 35 in 2021. About 90% of the participating editors in the second RfC did not buy the claims of the disgruntled editors.

There has been no failure of policy or failure of the community that needs to be addressed by ArbCom. NightHeron (talk) 09:21, 22 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Gardenofaleph's comment below misstates the issue. The journal Intelligence was not rejected as a source when we edited Race and intelligence in accordance with WP:FRINGE. It's in fact cited 6 times in the R&I article. However, Intelligence is the official journal of the International Society of Intelligence Research, which is probably the most active organization promoting racial hereditarianism. The articles in that journal are not RS for the purpose of determining scientific consensus on race and intelligence or for refuting the conclusions of the 2020 and 2021 RfCs that the theory of genetic inferiority of certain races in intelligence is a fringe POV. NightHeron (talk) 19:52, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Could you clear up my confusion about what's going on here with private email? My impression from passing remarks about it is that Ferahgo has been making a series of detailed claims about conduct by me and other editors in the form of private email to which we do not have access, and that these private emails have convinced you that ArbCom should open an investigation of the editing of R&I. Is this correct? If so, how does that square with Wikipedia policy? Having been on Wikipedia only 3 1/2 years, I'm still unfamiliar with some of the nuances of how WP (and especially ArbCom) operates. I thought that editors are supposed to be notified when accusations against them are being discussed with ArbCom so that they can defend themselves, and for the same reason those accusations are supposed to be discussed on-Wiki and not behind the backs of the accused editors. Was there a reason why the accusations had to be discussed in private? Clearly from Ferahgo's perspective there was, since her claims sound much more convincing if no one's around to refute her falsehoods and misrepresentations. But from your perspective, why did you think it appropriate to consider her claims in private without hearing the other side? Thank you. NightHeron (talk) 12:17, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply. My impression was that Ferahgo was using private email to argue for the allegation that the majority of editors editing Race and Intelligence and participating on the talk-page were violating core Wikipedia policies such as WP:NPOV and WP:RS in our judgments on appropriate use of sources. These are serious charges, and they are false. I also noted that you feel obligated not to divulge the content of that email, presumably for privacy reasons. I'm glad to hear that you encouraged Ferahgo to raise any such issues on-wiki, where the accused editors are notified and have the opportunity to respond. Thank you. NightHeron (talk) 17:48, 28 October 2021 (UTC)


 * In response to Stonkaments' comment concerning the FAQ on the R&I talk-page, even a cursory glance will show that Stonkaments misrepresents the "political correctness" question, which in full asks: Isn't this just political correctness? The answer given is that rejection of the belief that certain races are genetically endowed with less intelligence than others is based on science, not "just" political correctness. The well-sourced FAQ was discussed at great length on the talk-page, and was extensively edited as the discussion progressed. NightHeron (talk) 01:57, 29 October 2021 (UTC)


 * In response to Stonkaments' latest statement directed to me, the FAQ does acknowledge that non-scientific as well as scientific considerations are involved in geneticists not devoting resources to investigating claims of racial differences in intelligence: "[while] moral concerns may play an important role in these decisions, an equally fundamental reason why researchers do not engage with the thesis is that empirical evidence shows that the whole idea itself is unintelligible and wrong-headed" (quoted from a source in the answer to the "political correctness" question). But I don't think this is the place to rehash the debates that occurred on the R&I talk-page. NightHeron (talk) 17:42, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Gardenofaleph
I recommend that ArbCom read the discussion here for additional background. High-quality sources that have been declared non-RS on the basis of the viewpoints they present have included several books from Cambridge University Press; Papers published in Perspectives on Psychological Science, Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, Human Nature, and the Journal of Biosocial Science, and one entire academic journal (Intelligence). Some of the time, the decisions to reject these sources have been based on sources of lower quality as defined as WP:SOURCETYPES, such as articles published in The Guardian and New Statesman, while in other cases Wikipedia editors have come up with their own justifications for rejecting these books and papers, in the absence of any reliably published criticism.

The conclusion that these sources are unreliable has not been supported by any decision at the RS noticeboard. Every attempt to discuss the issue there has either been shut down as in this case, or ended without concluding anything as in the more recent case. So the rejection of these sources does not appear to be supported by the broader community or by RS policy, but several editors have acted as though it's required by policy.

DGG's proposed amendment would possibly solve this issue, by defining a set of principles about the circumstances where it's acceptable to reject a source for this type of reason. Opening a new case could address it, too. But there is next to no chance the community could resolve this without some intervention by ArbCom. Every recent attempt to discuss the issue at the RS noticeboard has failed to reach any conclusion, and that will likely continue to be the case going forward. Gardenofaleph (talk) 16:57, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Statement by JayBeeEll
Quoting below: I'm concerned that what is being asked for is the committee to make "a statement" about the Fringe topic area which would then influence future content decisions. Yes, this is exactly what is being requested, and per David Gerard and jps this request should be dismissed with prejudice. --JBL (talk) 21:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Stonkaments
On multiple contentious topics, WP:FRINGE has been cited as justification for excluding reliable sources, misrepresenting sources, and making unsupported claims about the scientific consensus. This is not a content dispute; it's a broader issue of editors misinterpreting FRINGE in a way that is inconsistent with WP:V and WP:NPOV, and has caused harm to the project. As such, I believe the community would greatly benefit from ArbCom clarification that FRINGE does not preempt other policies. This does not mean de-prioritizing academic sources or giving fringe views undue weight, but simply handling fringe views in a manner that is consistent with all other policies—DUE, NPOV, V, etc. Stonkaments (talk) 00:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Even a cursory review of the FAQ at Talk:Race_and_intelligence shows that something has clearly gone quite wrong with WP:V on this topic. The FAQ claims that considerations of "political correctness" haven't played any role this debate, but this is contradicted by numerous reliable sources. Likewise, the claim that there is "no evidence at all" for a genetic link between race and intelligence is contradicted by numerous sources (detailed in previous discussions) that discuss circumstantial evidence that indicates a potential genetic link. Stonkaments (talk) 00:21, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Re-read the discussion at Talk:Race_and_intelligence—there was a clear and determined effort to deny recognition of the fact that abundant sources acknowledge the role that political correctness has played in this field. The FAQ claim that "researchers who choose to pursue this line of inquiry have in no way been hindered from doing so" is patently false. Stonkaments (talk) 17:09, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Statement by SMcCandlish
I generally agree with this request, except all this clarification that an RS cannot be excluded because of its viewpoint badly needs a reminder codicil that opinion/op-ed material in a generally reliable source is still a primary source not secondary even if most of what it publishes is secondary. There is a lot of confusion about this, all the time. E.g. a journal or newspaper that usually has literature reviews or proper news, respectively, gets cited for an editorial stance it has taken and then is claimed to be a reliable source for the truth of that stance. It is not. It is just a WP:ABOUTSELF-reliable source that the publication's editorial viewpoint is that viewpoint and that they did say what they did. (This comes up beyond WP:FRINGE contexts but also often in WP:MEDRS and in politics. I just now ran into it yet again only a few minutes ago in a socio-political RfC, for example.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:45, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Statement by ProcrastinatingReader
Principles and FoFs from old cases probably shouldn't be changed. IME ArbCom only interacts with DS at a high level, setting out the procedures and then largely letting admins manage it's running in practice. Perhaps there would be scope for ArbCom to set high-level subject-specific guidance. For example, in APL there is Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism_in_Poland which is guidance at a high level. Similarly, there could be scope to add a remedy to the referenced case (titled "Interpretation" or some such) with high level guidance, assuming the substance of this request would improve enforcement in the manner DGG describes. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:58, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Black Kite
The very first sentence of this request is "The reason for this request is the arguments on sources that keep occurring on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, WP:RSN, when dealing with minority views, where the arbcom rulings have been used to prevent the inclusion of reasonably reputable sources.". Yet apart from one tangentally related issue that has been raised in the conversation above, I don't see any evidence of these occurrences of the arbcom ruling being used at RSN, let alone "keep occurring". I would be interested to see some. Also, we should absolutely not be considering any modification which would cause WP:FRINGE to be made weaker - the third change in particular would effectively do this. If people are misusing FRINGE in rare cases, that can be dealt with through our regular processes; but FRINGE is there for a very good reason (as is WP:PSCI, which is policy). Black Kite (talk) 17:02, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Aquillion
I agree with Alexbrn; the first two requested amendments are puzzling, but the second two are ghastly. The summary of them directly misrepresents both the relevant policies and the impact they would have. WP:NPOV,WP:GEVAL, WP:DUE, and most of all WP:FRINGE specifically instruct us to, in certain circumstances, weigh inclusions and therefore sources based on the views they represent; DGG's suggestion here, if taken seriously, is effectively asking ArbCom to rewrite longstanding core policy by fiat in a way that would completely defang WP:FRINGE and weaken core parts of WP:NPOV, WP:DUE, and WP:GEVAL. I understand that it is frustrating to be told that you that you can't add something to an article you consider true and important and well-cited because your addition would gives a particular view more prominence than it is WP:DUE, because it promotes or relies on WP:GEVAL, or because it is WP:FRINGE; but those have been central pillars of Wikipedia since long before even the ancient case in question and are absolutely vital parts of how we write articles. If you think people are abusing those arguments, bring cases focused on those individual abuses and individual editors; but trying to completely defang WP:FRINGE like this is not the way to go. --Aquillion (talk) 18:41, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Statement by PaleoNeonate
"in particular, WP:NPOV requires that sources should not be excluded from articles on the basis of the viewpoint they represent." I don't think this would be acceptable without also mentions of WP:GEVAL, WP:PRIMARY, WP:PARITY, WP:NOTNEWS... The same sentence also admits that it's about fringe topics. I've argued myself at FTN at times that a religious doctrine simply had to clearly be defined as such in cases where it is very distinct to pseudoscience. Sometimes I'll also remind that ARBPS was an important historical precedent, but that its clauses applied to that particular case; that current policy is what matters for editorial judgement. — Paleo Neonate  – 20:36, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Quoting David Gerard: "if this is prone to be seized upon in an attempt to relitigate the race and intelligence RFC yet again, that's an excellent worked example of why not to change anything", or COVID-19 misinformation, 9/11 conspiracy theories, or questionable medicinal treatments. WP has been reported by some sources as exemplary in its treatment of such topics, despite the repeated attempts to push such misinformation. Accusations that WP's reputation is instead tarnished for not catering to those are nonsense: I'd personally long have left WP for more reality-based projects if it generally fell into clickbait scandal, pr-ad traps, journalistic false-balance, political disinformation and science-denial by design. Fortunately there are policies against it, like WP:FRINGE, WP:PARITY, WP:RS, WP:FRIND, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:PSCI, WP:MEDRS, WP:NOT... And no, WP:FRINGE is not "abused" in relation to COVID-19-related fringe claims (just read WP:MEDRS to have an overview of the topic instead of unreliable sources or clickbait news written by people who don't understand the science). — Paleo Neonate  – 07:45, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

CutePeach: The ds/alert tag was explained and a response to interest apparently expressed here. When a topic ban was applied, it was also under COVID sanctions (for persistent promotion), not ARBPS. Adding: it's not WP that needs "fixing" so that it ends up promoting political disinformation, conspiracy theories, racialism, pseudoscience, uneffective medical treatments or unlikely scenarios as plausible. It is important for topics to be described as what they are and to be careful about source selection. The proposed "fix" would corrupt the encyclopedia. If enough evidence and related material existed for an article about an actual lab leak event, for instance, we would expect a " incident" type article that would also describe how it was mitigated and how it affected procedures, not one about (now popular enough for an article to exist) speculation and its promoters... — Paleo Neonate  – 08:51, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Statement by CutePeach
I know very little about the R&I and even less about the debates here on Wikipedia, but from Ferahgo's account and Generalrelative’s response, I can see there is a problem. According to our article on intelligence, it is defined in many ways, and it wouldn’t be surprised me to learn that Bajaus and other seafaring peoples can be marginally better or worse off in some of these different ways, depending on which way we looked at it. Our Race (human categorization) article defines it as a social construct and that scientists … continue … to conceptualize race in widely differing ways, so I don’t see why some scientists wouldn’t try to observe commonalities and differences in different peoples that would characterize their intelligence in the many ways it is defined. It may be that their observations are scientifically unsound, but the key to debunking bad science is describing both sides accurately, and faithfully. CutePeach (talk) 09:14, 28 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree WP is exemplary in its treatment of pseudoscience, but that’s thanks only to the correct application of policies. If WP:FRINGE and WP:V aren’t applied correctly, we could end up with a situation where the Egyptian pyramid construction techniques article is deleted and tucked into Egyptology as a level four section, with topic bans handed out to any dissenting editors. Not long after I unblanked the COVID-19 lab leak article, you slapped an WP:ARBPS notice on my talk page, and not a day later another editor filed a complaint against me in WP:AE citing WP:ARBPS/4A , in what is presumably a coincidence. The case didn’t even address ARBPS, and instead turned into a frenzied session of mud slinging and spaghetti flinging, leaving the matter unsettled in ongoing disputes. I intend to appeal the topic ban, but first I’d like to see ARBCOM acknowledge the problem here, and attempt a WP:FIXIT. CutePeach (talk) 10:53, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Fringe science: Clerk notes

 * This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).



Fringe science: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * If I understand this request correctly, we are being asked to reduce Wikipedia's dependence on academic peer-reviewed sources in fringe scientific topics by denying them priority over other sources. I welcome statements from the community on whether these changes are desirable, what impacts they would have, and whether they would be consistent with the principles and findings of the case in question. –  bradv 🍁  17:15, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * On second look, this is even more confusing. The items we're being requested to adjust here are not remedies, but principles and findings of fact which informed the outcome of the case. These principles make reference to and contain quotations from the NPOV policy, but we're being asked to instead make them dependent upon the FRINGE guideline, which presumably existed in a different form 12 years ago when this case was written. Furthermore, there are several comments here about how these intersecting policies and guidelines have been misused in various fora, which in my opinion is a reason to investigate those instances and patterns rather than reform the underlying principles without analysis or investigation. In other words, if revising this case is going to affect the intersection of fringe science with any of the topics listed in this filing, we should examine those topics one at a time, either in the form of an ARCA or a case request, rather than trying to argue the general without knowing the specifics. – bradv 🍁  19:31, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit confused tbh. Requests for amendments are usually for the addition, change or removal of sanctions (as the red box on top says). This request seems to ask for the change of principles and FoF from the old case. But they just reflect the principles that existed at the time of the decision and the facts that the decision was based on. Principles are based on policies and guidelines and those can change over time. Maybe those colleagues who were on the Committee back then can shed some light on why WP:FRINGE was not referenced explicitly despite already existing as a guideline? That said, correct me if I'm wrong but the decision contains to authorization for DS or similar, so shouldn't it be sufficient to declare that ArbCom does not rule on content and the FoF and principles from the old case thus cannot override a guideline on the topic that has community approval? Regards So  Why  18:11, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to examining how WP:FRINGE, a content guideline, interacts with Discretionary Sanctions around a particular case at AE or better yet a pattern of cases/sanctions. As has been mentioned there has been communication with the committee and with me specifically about this and so that is what I had been expecting to see. However, as SoWhy points out the FoF that were found at that time is what was found at that time. Changing anything but a remedy 12 years later strikes me as something that would be reserved for extraordinary circumstances, while this (how to handle FRINGE/minitory views in contentious areas) seems like a regular ordinary difficult content problem. The sense I get is that I'm being asked to amend a case because some people are quoting from it at RSN and that doesn't seem like the right basis for an amendment request. People can quote what they want and anything that is not a policy or guideline (that is something with predetermined community consensus) only matters as much as others in the conversation agree that it does, that is it gainsconsensuss of the participating editors. Essays get quoted approvingly all the time and form the basis of consensus for instance. To the extent that this understanding of the request is wrong, please correct me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:00, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Except @DGG that's not quite true either. We have Arbitration/Index/Principles for a reason. I know drafters, including me with IRANPOL, make an effort to reuse those. Of course sometimes the principles are slightly different which is why you see a million variations on that page. But ultimately I go back to what I said before: people are welcome to quote whatever they want. It only has weight if other people agree it does - either by making it into a policy/guideline or by agreeing it matters in the context of a discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:19, 22 October 2021 (UTC)@Ferahgo: I don't want to divulge what all you sent in email to me and to the committee but in re-reading that I'm not seeing anything here that contradicts that. Specific evidence of something in our remit (i.e. not just a content dispute) is generally needed. That is what I'm looking for here regardless of the scope of what we're talking about. Obviously amending a case is in our remit but besides thinking it's a bad idea in general, I'm also not seeing evidence as to why it's needed now. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:19, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks to @CaptainEek for those comments. I agree with them and desire to really think through what @Ferahgo the Assassin has provided though I am currently having to prioritize some other wikiwork. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I was sent an email asking me to reconsider a sanction and some broader concerns to which I said the full committee would need to be involved. Then the committee was sent emails to which the response was "we can't really help you, please go onwiki" and here we are onwiki. At the moment I am unaware of specific editors being considered for sanctions but if that happens people do need to be notified. This appeal started asking us to amend an old case. There was no desire among arbs to consider that. Beyond that Eek has suggested a couple things to think about before we close the appeal which I agree are worth thinking about but I don't have the time to give them the attention they would need to be adequately examined at the moment. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:02, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm with bradv on this one - if a case is being improperly referenced or referred to, that is an issue with the editor(s) providing that link. As stated both here and in recent ARCAs, we should not be changing anything other than Remedies from past cases; the FoF and Principles reflect Wikipedia at the time and we should not be changing them just to keep them current. Primefac (talk) 19:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm struggling with the idea of altering findings or principles of a 12 year old case. I'm quite happy to "clarify" to anyone that Principles and Findings reflect the state of the encyclopedia at the time, and since the encyclopedia has continued to develop, it may not reflect the current state of the encyclopedia - but I'm not happy to amend old cases in that way. If it's causing widespread problems, then the best solution would be a fresh arbitration request, for up to date findings and principles - but I'm not seeing that there are sufficient problems in the area that we need such a case. Does anyone have examples where the principles have been specifically called out in recent discussions? I'm concerned that what is being asked for is the committee to make "a statement" about the Fringe topic area which would then influence future content decisions, and while that might happen to an extent in a case - we should do what we can to minimise it, and should not be doing it here. WormTT(talk) 11:10, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * - my point with respect to "may not reflect the current state of the encyclopedia" was that old principles and findings should not be used to argue present decisions, as consensus can change. However, since I'm seeing no evidence that present discussions are being directly influenced by the old case, the point is moot. At any rate, I'm at the point of decline with respect to the request. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 09:26, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * While the use of sources in the topic area is concerning, the link between the problems and the case seem tenuous at best. I will not support changing the principles or FoF of any case, absent some obvious mistake on our part. Seeing as these have stood for over a decade, it appears they were correct and factual. If folks think we need to approach the issue again, then perhaps a case request is in order. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:00, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @DGG@Ferahgo the Assassin Well, it looks like the proposed amendments won't pass, seeing as we won't amend past principles. But it appears there remains an underlying issue. I can't help but wonder: is the right case to focus on Race and Intelligence, not Fringe Science? We seem poised to close this ARCA, but I don't want this issue to go and simmer more. Could y'all (and others) comment on the value of an ARCA focused on R&I, a new case request, or perhaps some kind of brainstorming session leading up to an ARCA? CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:24, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Editing guidelines cover the areas - no need for arbcom involvement or amendment, particularly as the case has not been invoked in a discussion. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:55, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with my colleagues that there is no need to amend old principles and findings of fact to reflect changes in policy or practice; if we did that, we'd be amending old cases every time any policy changed. This Committee is not in the business of maintaining an accurate current compendium of community norms and consensus on every principle previously stated in an arbitration case, or in "ratifying" shifts in community sentiments by amending those old principles. (I can imagine two exceptions: (1) where a finding of fact directly affects a remedy, e.g., if a finding of fact defines a term used in a remedy; or (2) in extreme circumstances, if a prior decision was so contradictory to the principles of the encyclopedia that to keep it would be undignified. These should be rare and neither apply here.) I would therefore decline the request. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 07:30, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll also echo others here, that this is not one of the very rare cases where amending old principles or findings is worthwhile, and that the reliability and weighting of sources is generally not something ArbCom should be deciding. --BDD (talk) 21:38, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * A little late here, but I would also be very reluctant to start altering old FoFs or principles unless there is some reason to believe they were entirely in error at the time they were passed. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)