Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science/Evidence

Case focus
As a quick reminder, the focus of the case is to be around the difficulty of maintaining civility and decorum in this highly disputed area of the encyclopedia (fringe scientific or pseudoscientific topics). While the behavior of some editors involved in those areas (in particular, that of ScienceApologist) will be examined, it is not the only concern of the Arbitrators and evidence as to the wider disputes on those articles and the way they have been handled to date will be especially appreciated. &mdash; Coren (talk) 06:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's collaborative editing model simply doesn't work when one editor assumes ownership of multiple articles and turns them all into battlegrounds. It drives away everyone except those who want to do battle. For example, neutral editors become labeled as 'POV-pushers' even in the absence of any evidence of POV-pushing, simply for asking that WP standards of civility and decorum be followed.  The chances of achieving a reasonable consensus in such an environment are practically nil. Dlabtot (talk) 18:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You can look at the tone of comments on the workshop page to start. You can see the attitudes on display there.  Folks are unwilling to help each other achieve a common understanding.  Instead, there is melee. My actions speak loudly (e.g. Cold fusion, Sadi Carnot, 9/11 enforcement at WP:AE), but look how people reacted to my proposals.Jehochman Talk 22:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I see people calmly pointing out legitimate issues with some of your proposals, not a "melee" at all. Proposals should be open to discussion and comment by all.  To characterize legitimate discussion and comment in these hyperbolic terms is not helpful. Most of your proposals are being left uncommented; it's only the ones that people see problems with that have been subject to discussion. Surely you're not suggesting that for some reason your proposals should be exempt from comment? Or that making a comment on a proposal is somehow uncivil?Woonpton (talk) 23:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Seriously, Jehochman, if you honestly believe that you are not part of the problem and that your own actions are not open to questioning, then how can you lecture anyone else on how things should work here? You do not have more rights than SA does... if anything, with an admin position, you should have more rules to live up to than normal editors. Solving a conflict means working on a good faith attempt to come up with a solution that works for everyone and furthers Wikipedia's content goals. It does not mean acting like you can do no wrong and trying to get someone you dislike and disagree with banned because you dislike and disagree with him. Yes, your actions do speak loudly: and that's part of the problem that we should be working on solving. DreamGuy (talk) 23:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Jehochman, it's just that your proposals have hit a few encysted issues. I would consider that just a symptom that you have correctly identified the relevant issues at play, and not a symptom that people doesn't like your proposals. Those issues needed to be discussed. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Question regarding evidence
I've left a question at Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science/Workshop, particularly for users who will present or have presented this evidence. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Libel and harassment
I want bullshit like this -- "I'm going to get JB imprisoned for impersonating a medical doctor" -- stricken from the record. While the comment was not entirely serious, it's not the kind of thing that ought to be in search engines, where it can be taken out of context. (And my license to practice is just fine, by the way.) I consider this comment, and other recent actions by SA, to be harassment (per SA's threat: "I promise to continue to attack others within the bounds of Wikipedia rules without violating POINT or BATTLEGROUND until I see every person I'm in conflict with blocked or banned.". This needs to stop, like right now.  --Jim Butler (t) 13:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Without commenting on other matters, Wikipedia and mirrors do not come up in returns. Vassyana (talk) 17:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh yes they do. --Jim Butler (t) 22:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've replaced Jim Butler with "JB" in that quote, with a link to this section. I hope this is OK with everyone. Daniel (talk) 23:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. I've thought about it for awhile, and while I don't want to WP:VANISH, I do want to change my username and remove personal information from WP.  The harassment and general name-calling make it necessary.  If someone can help me with this, I'd be most grateful.  regards, Jim Butler (t) 23:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That falls outside what I'm doing here, unfortunately, sorry :( Maybe contacting an active bureaucrat may be beneficial, as they are experienced in such things. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 02:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I can certainly understand Jim's concerns, since all pages here, including sandboxes and user subpages, appear in search engines, and sometimes almost instantly. Google is very effective. Outright BS like that should be disguised or removed. It serves no useful purpose to have it laying around. -- Fyslee (talk) 02:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * All arbitration pages, including their talk pages, are part of our Robots.txt file, if it's any comfort. Daniel (talk) 03:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll pull rank on the rest of you (when it comes to search technology) and say that nothing we do can keep our content out of the search engines, except blanking. The reason is that there are numerous sites that scrape Wikipedia specifically so they can show up in the search rankings.  Our robots excluded pages are juicy targets for them, because if Google does not index our version, whoever posts a copy will have what looks like unique content.  Therefore, the only solutions are for users to hide behind pseudonyms (an imperfect solution at best, due to the risk of outing), or else we can develop backbones and actually enforce WP:NPA.  I suggest doing the latter. Jehochman Talk 03:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this sort of a "welcome to the internet" situation? Quietmarc (talk) 17:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it's a "welcome to why it's better to be on the internet pseudonymously" situation. I was wrong to assume that editors would abide by WP:NPA, or that, if they didn't, some grownup somewhere would sanction them.  Instead, playing "bad cop" has been tolerated (and even encouraged).  I hate to reward bad behavior, but since WP refuses to sanction it, I have no choice other than to leave.  This time, it's personal, literally.  --Jim Butler (t) 20:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

SPOV rejection by MastCell
There is no centralized debate I'm aware of which one can cite to say the community has rejected SPOV. However, it's obvious that any POV other than NPOV is not NPOV. MastCell says:


 * More: SPOV and NPOV are not mutually exclusive. Any reasonable application of WP:NPOV to scientific topics will end up favoring the mainstream scientific point of view. ArbCom formalized this in the cold fusion case, but it's actually nothing new - their finding merely reflected the basic understanding of Wikipedia's goals and already-existing best practices. You can call it SPOV if you want - perhaps it is - but it's also NPOV. MastCell Talk 06:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Several points: More: SPOV and NPOV are not mutually exclusive. true, of course.

Any reasonable application of WP:NPOV to scientific topics will end up favoring the mainstream scientific point of view. True, of course, but you forgot the "mainstream" part. If you'd put it in, things wouldn't be so clear, especially when the purported "mainstream" view is only advocated by such as Quackwatch, or worse advocacy, while the so-called "fringe" views have several longstanding peer reviewed journals, many academic sources, many university positions.... etc.

Another point on this: while the article will usually end up favoring the mainstream POV because of the sources, this is not because of NPOV but despite it. To adopt SPOV is to enforce this.

ArbCom formalized this in the cold fusion case Yes, it did, and as such it has formalized SPOV, as advocated by most here. Yet some on the ArbCom have argued that SPOV and NPOV are not the same thing.

You all should cool down by reviewing the Encyclopedia Britannica article on, for example, Parapsychology. It's great in general. If Wikipedia could do that, it would be fine. Alas, Wikipedia is beset by SPOV advocates who lean heavily toward debunking. —— Martinphi    Ψ~Φ —— 06:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Show me an article where the "mainstream POV" is sourced only by Quackwatch, and I suspect I'll be able to show you an article where all the other sources are crappier by far. In any case, on the whole Brittanica is far more hostile to non-mainstream topics than Wikipedia - most are simply ignored. I've lost count of the number of fringe views too wacky to merit even a word in Brittanica which find a home and their own lovingly maintained POV forks here on Wikipedia. MastCell Talk 07:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No, Britannica is much less hostile that WP. I've read a large number of fringe articles there, and they are much less hostile. And talking about subjects which should not be in WP or saying "the other guy's sources are even worse" isn't a really good argument, is it?  Parity is just a violation of RS.  —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 21:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It is? Maybe you could suggest an alternative to what we should do when mainstream refuses to deal with a fringe topic :P --Enric Naval (talk) 03:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Martin, I think MastCell is referring to Britannica's "hostility" being evident by the fact they won't even give the time of day to many fringe subjects. They won't allow ludicrous subjects to fill their pages, while Wikipedia does quite often. They only deal with significant subjects. -- Fyslee (talk) 03:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

NPOV and SPOV are aligned with Wikipedia policies
Some thoughts.... Speaking of NPOV and SPOV, the SPOV functions in a manner similar to Wikipedia's sourcing policies and other policies. There are aligned with each other. Why? Because scientists and skeptics think like Wikipedia editors should, if they are following policy. Scientists and skeptics want verification for things. Wikipedia wants verification too. Scientists and skeptics want to know how reliable and valid a piece of information is. Wikipedia wants reliable, valid information. Claims, anecdotes, and unsourced content just don't qualify. Critical thinking is essential to Wikipedia. (Paraphrased from someone else, I'm not sure who.) By demanding that editors follow existing policy, we are already requiring them to use the scientific method for verifying sources. The typical alternative medicine and fringe thinking patterns, where anecdotes and wishful thinking are good enough, just don't work here, which may be why those editors are often flakes who run afoul of our policies. Fortunately their sources are likewise flakey and rarely qualify as V & RS, IOW they run into sourcing problems, while SPOV editors have an abundance of V & RS available, because those sources are written using the scientific method, with peer-review and fact checking. They are simply better. The truth will out. Verifiable reality really is a trump card here. -- Fyslee (talk) 07:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

See my proposed principle 1 for a clarification of this. I don't think the intent in the equivalent principle in the Cold fusion case was to subvert the neutral point of view policy, and my wording is an attempt to clarify that. We really don't need a distinct policy for science articles, but we do need to clarify our application of NPOV to science articles. --TS 18:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * TS, that is NPOV, not SPOV. It is much different. Very nice if we are not to go SPOV.  I agree about the use of the word "mainstream."  —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 21:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note also my proposals "Science and politics" and "Science and propaganda". I don't see this as a soft option to SPOV.  Rigorous application of NPOV will ensure that pseudoscience and the fringe will get short shrift.  I am only concerned to preserve historical context and legitimate divisions within science, not stuff like modern homeopathy and probably not to the extent of significantly altering the current presentation of cold fusion. --TS 05:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * What about legitimate divisions outside of science, like modern homeopathy? Or do you somehow define those to be not legitimate, and therefore off the table? Dicklyon (talk) 18:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * SPOV is just NPOV with a good understanding of what makes a reliable source. Phil153 (talk) 21:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Mainstream vs Fringe?
- 	I have just read Brothejr's evidence. Science is represented by what appears in peer-reviewed journals and reviews. These are the sources for wikipedia. Any theories that contest accepted theories will be evaluated through these recognized sources. If they are not, and simply appear on internet sites, that can mean that they are not taken seriously by the scientific community. It is a misconception that there is a battle between mainstream science and fringe science. The latter is usually unfunded, because it is deemed to be unpromising or flawed. Tony Sidaway makes a similar point in his evidence. In theoretical physics there are many areas in a state of flux, with no final satisfactory answer, even several competing theories. M-theory or the theory of D-branes, one of the latest trends in string theory, is an example of such a theory. Quantum loop gravity is another. These theories are constantly re-evaluated as new contributions appear.

As regards the article on cold fusion, there was an official DOE report in 2004 containing 18 referees' reports, giving a complete re-evaluation of the status of the subject. That accounts for the changes in the article. Mathsci (talk) 17:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree for the need to use scholarly sources, and the DOE report in particular for cold fusion. But then, how do you explain the suppression of these DOE statements from the current cold fusion article ? Surely something else must be going on when we talk of scientific controversies.  Pcarbonn (talk) 17:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know about details. The reports were by people from different disciplines and some had differing views in their reports. The summary, however,indicated that there had been advances in calorimetry and that, while there was no basis to fund a general research programme, requests for funding should be considered on an individual basis. This is just from memory; I'm not sure the details of the article are that important here. (I followed the report a little because there was a big meeting in Marseille in 2004 organized by somebody - a sort of colleague - who had been in the news in France as secretary of the cult (?) Élan Vital.) It might amuse you to know that the Fleischmanns were family friends when I was very, very young :) @+ Mathsci (talk) 17:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Your summary of DOE is absolutely correct. Unfortunately, the current cold fusion article presents only the majority view of the DOE, and suppresses the view of the significant minority of panelists that had "differing views", as you said.  This is in line with WP:MAINSTREAM, but contrary to WP:NPOV. Pcarbonn (talk) 18:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * But were the individual reports actually published? At the time I had the impression that they were leaked. Mathsci (talk) 18:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The statements on the minority view that I quoted here are directly from the official DOE report, and thus deserve to be quoted in our article. Other comments from individual reviewers were indeed leaked, but that's not what I'm referring to here.  Pcarbonn (talk) 18:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not the correct place to discuss this kind of detail. Again from personal memory, the Marseille meeting - which included Brian Josephson - seemed to be attempting to put a positive spin on the DOE report. In view of the summary, the use of individual reports to give a different impression than that appearing in the summary seems quite inappropriate. The summary was presumably decided by consensus, once the reports had been submitted. It's not up to wikipedia editors to attempt to re-evaluate the evidence used in preparing the DOE's summary. That would surely be WP:ORMathsci (talk) 18:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm lost. Why are you making these points ? I was not talking about any Marseille meeting nor any of its report, but only about the official report from the DOE.  Pcarbonn (talk) 19:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not an editor of the cold fusion article and this is not the place to discuss in detail how the wikipedia article should represent the DOE summary. I don't think cold fusion is the main issue here; there are plenty of other examples of fringe science on wikipedia, for example water memory of Jacques Benveniste. Mathsci (talk) 19:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Objection
I object in the strongest possible terms to the use of a quote from a comment I made on the workshop page, taken out of context, as an example to support Brothej's evidence in a way that misrepresents my meaning. I was objecting to the use of the word "debunking" as a negative term because the word is often misused to dismiss any criticism of a fringe view, even when expressed in a neutral voice and supported by reliable sources. The people who use that term in a negative sense often do so as a way of trying to dismiss and disavow the mainstream view of a fringe idea. (The fact that the "debunking" proposal was later struck is a measure of the problematic nature of the term.) When I said that there are some subjects that need to be discredited in order to preserve the quality of the encyclopedia, I simply meant that the mainstream view should be the dominant view when describing fringe subjects. (At the same time, I agree with Mathsci that "it is a fantasy that there is a battle between mainstream and fringe science".) The idea that the static you hear on your radio is really your dead grandmother sending you messages, for example, should not be presented in an encyclopedia as a credible idea; instead the fact that the idea is not supported by science should be a significant part of the article, cited of course to reliable sources. That's all I was saying, and one small piece of my comment was taken out of context and used to make it seem as if I was saying something I wasn't saying at all. I was certainly not arguing for using original research to "discredit" ideas or anything of the sort, I was simply arguing against the denigration of reliable sources in favor of "fringe" sources. I would like the quote, and any conclusions drawn from it that misrepresent my meaning and its context, stricken from brothej's evidence.Woonpton (talk) 18:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I second this objection. Quotes like this, from talk pages or the workshop of an ArbCom case, should not be cherrypicked and "showcased" out of context on the evidence page. That does not seem to be respecting decorum. On the other hand there is nothing to stop Woonpton from creating his own evidence section (possibly after some more dust has settled, there's no rush) which could also correct any perceived imbalance. Mathsci (talk) 18:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is that, what you are arguing, how you are arguing, and the words you use are part of the problem. My point is simple: Wikipedia is not here to debunk (Or whatever term you choose) or promote fringe science.  It is here solely to report on the topic using the best of all possible sources.  That is why I used your statement, and it is a prime example of what I am saying.  Also, please do not post within someone's evidence.  Brothejr (talk) 19:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think there seems to be misunderstanding of how science is published and evaluated. Many scientists or would-be scientists try to put forward new ideas or new theories (eg water memory) which cannot be observed in real life experiments or where the theory itself is irretrievably flawed. Publication is attempted through the usual channels, or occasionally, if rejected from there, in fringe journals like Progress in Physics. However once rejected, if the originators do not recognize the shortcomings of the theory or there are peer-reviewed refutations and ensuing controversy, it moves into the realms of fringe science. If the notability/notoriety of the "theory" can be established, it might merit a wikipedia article. That seems to be what has happened so far on wikipedia. Take a look at water memory. Mathsci (talk) 20:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand the process and what happens in science, yet this is Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, that is not just about science, and the editing rules that apply to non-science articles also apply to science articles. If an editor wants to argue for or against a fringe, Wikipedia is not the place to do it.  If you want to disprove a fringe theory, then Wikipedia is not the place to do it.  Wikipedia is here to report on such theories in a neutral fashion.  There should be no fighting, no battling, etc, against a fringe theory here.  If it is notable enough for an article on it's own, then the fringe theory needs to be reported from the NPOV in the article.  This does not mean that disagreements over the fringe, reports that others have disproved it, etc cannot be reported in the article, but that the article, when reporting the skepticism, should not impart any sort of bias what-so-ever for or against the fringe to the reader.  If an editor cannot separate themselves from editing neutrally, then they should not be editing articles here.  That goes for people on both sides of the issue.
 * We have articles about fringe theories which are known to be wrong, one of which I cite above. Again water memory is surrounded by controversy and that can be reported on using WP:RS. Wikipredia leaves no doubt that this has been rejected by the scientific community. What other sources do you think we could use that are not being used at present in water memory? Mathsci (talk) 21:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned elsewhere, I'm not arguing the sources, but the writing in the articles.  Everything can be written without bias.  It can be done.  Also, my evidence points to that the fact that various editors fighting for and against the fringe have caused the writing in these articles to degrade.  Plus, we, as editors, need to get out of this battle mentality and focus back on the writing, the wording, and how to better present an article that informs the reader without bias.  If we are going to do this, then we as editors need to write the articles in a neutral tone, adhering to the WP:NPOV policy.  Brothejr (talk) 21:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The reader should be left in no doubt that the claimed phenomenon water memory has not been accepted by the scientific community. I don't quite know what you mean by "degrade". For living people, WP:BLP applies (an example of a problematic BLP of a fringe scientist is that of Ruggero Santilli, a biography I would gladly see deleted). In the case of Jacques Benveniste (d. 2004), funding to his laboratory was stopped following his research activities on water memory. Since I don't edit in this area (well very rarely), I haven't really encountered a "battle mentality". I'm not quite sure who starts fringe articles: in the case of Florentin Smarandache, it appears to be the subject of the BLP or his cronies. We then have to do the best we can to maintain the standards you have outlined.  I did my best in cleaning up Smarandache function, a spin-off article. Mathsci (talk) 23:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The point I am making is that we can "leave no doubt" that any claimed phenomenon, fringe, or whatever has not been accepted by the scientific community and still be neutral without bias. What I meant by degrading is that over the course of these articles, people pushing on both sides have continually pushed in more and more biased writing for and against the fringe.  Instead, each article has to be written in such a way as to not impart any sort of judgment by the editors of the article.  This is the same standard across the encyclopedia.  Remember, Wikipedia is not here to do the thinking for the reader, but to just report the facts. As far as the battle mentality (You can take a look at the various archives of AN/I, Frenge Theory Notice Board and see various comments from editors who say in one form or another how we need to "battle" the fringe.), you have a variety of editors (SA can be considered as one too) who look upon it almost as a crusade to use Wikipedia as way to debunk all fringe theories.  I've heard many times how the internet has made it far easier for fringe theorists to push their theories.  Thus, these scientific editors look upon their duty to fight the fringe pushers on the internet as much as they can.  What started outside of Wikipedia is now taking place in Wikipedia.   I am not arguing that we need to lend any more credence to fringe theories other then stating the facts of what they are.  What I am saying is that everyone on both sides of the issue, need to calm down.  Both sides need to respect and use third party peer reviewed sources that cannot be challenged due to the rigorous adherence of WP:RS.   Brothejr (talk) 00:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In am in complete agreement with your last two statements. I also think that, as you say and as I say in the second and third part of my evidence ("religious zealot"), calm discussion is preferable to immoderate outbursts. The medical experts have displayed this impressively on Chiropractic. ScienceApologist and some administrators could learn much from this use of the "quiet voice of reason". Certainly any kind of confrontational methods are completely counter-productive. Just locate good sources. On the other hand slow persistent and civil pushing for the inclusion of marginal material can result in undue balance in an article. In medical articles, where there is a huge ever-expanding literature, this can be a particular problem. So picking the most up-to-date and appropriate reviews isn't as straightforward as all that. It has to be decided by consensus and requires some kind of expertise. Mathsci (talk) 16:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I am very distressed to find that rather than refactoring the section as I requested, Brothejr has chosen not only not to remove the quote that was taken out of context, but to continue misrepresenting my position and to use that misrepresentation as the basis for part of his evidence in this case. Mathsci seems to be suggesting above that the evidence page is the place where I should challenge the misrepresentation, but to me, settling a misunderstanding about terminology used on the workshop page doesn't seem an appropriate use of the evidence page; instead this talk page seems to me to be the appropriate place to clear up this misunderstanding. But if the person who has misrepresented my position simply refuses to accept that he's taking my words to mean something I didn't mean by them, and that in fact he and I are saying much the same thing in different words; if the person seems to be insisting that he knows better than I do what I meant, and that he is determined to take what he mistakenly thinks I meant as a call to battle,  there's not much room for dialogue and I'm at a loss as to how to resolve this issue.


 * I have already made very clear, I thought, that in my view, the neutral and accurate representation of a topic as represented by the body of reliable sources is the fundamental goal of the encyclopedia, and that I am as much against the use of rhetoric and argumentation in article space to promote a point of view,  as is Brothejr.   In the workshop comment from which one sentence was taken out of context to support Brothejr's POINT, I was arguing against the denigration of the term "debunking" as a way of discrediting any well-sourced and neutral-toned citation of critical material about fringe theories. But arguing against using a label to try to keep well-deserved and well-sourced criticism out of fringe topics is not the same as arguing for advocacy for anything but a neutral, accurate representation of the topic.  To use my words to mean otherwise is to do violence to my meaning, and I continue to vehemently object to such misrepresentation. Woonpton (talk) 17:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for clarification re: scope of the case
At the top of this page one of the arbitrators has stated "the focus of the case is to be around the difficulty of maintaining civility and decorum" on articles related to this subject matter. Does this mean that issues related Wikipedia content policies and their enforcement (or lack of enforcement) is outside the scope of this case, since content policies are not immediately related to "civility and decorum"? I know arbcom doesn't make content decisions but it does consider issues related to implementation of content policy. I think it helps to be clear at the outset regarding the scope of an arbcom case, so that discussion doesn't veer too far off topic. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I was basing my evidence on Casliber's statement here, which I thought was very helpful: « good starting point to thrash out some issues and novel solutions when application of civility diverges from the ultimate goal which is encyclopedia building ». I have hesitated to provide diffs because, at this stage, it seemed more important to establish some general principles - content vs civility - than naming editors or administrators, which I believe would be quite counterproductive at present. Mathsci (talk) 21:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the two are mostly inseparable, although I welcome evidence otherwise. It is likely that disputes tend to degenerate because of the participant's interpretations of those policies; in particular (as Casliber has already pointed out) when they diverge.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 22:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

This evidence page is a mess
There are multiple sections that do not include any actual evidence, i.e., diffs, editors editing sections other than their own, and so forth. I would urge editors to follow the instructions given at the top of the page. Don't make a difficult case even harder. Dlabtot (talk) 20:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Second. Can we have some clerk attention to this? Thanks. Ronnotel (talk) 20:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, time zone + life = not always here :) I've dealt with the comments in other people's sections (I think; let me know if I missed one), but it isn't the clerks job to remove evidence of dubious grounding - that's a job for the arbitrators to decide when they formulate their final decision. Feel free to raise the lack of substantiation of certain submissions at the workshop, under "Analysis of evidence". Regards, Daniel (talk) 00:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If the case clerks are busy/unavailable/over worked, the clerk's noticeboard is also another place to get help.--Tznkai (talk) 00:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * To Daniel: just want to say thanks for your work as a clerk. This is possibly the worst arbitration evidence page I've ever seen (which is pretty good evidence in itself - but I digress) and this was merely a justification for editing outside my area, not in any way a suggestion that clerks weren't doing their job. Phil153 (talk) 00:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Fear of "fringe theories"
Several editors on the evidence page and in the initial request for this case appear to be saying that SA's behavior is excusable because he is one of the only editors standing between Wikipedia and hordes of "fringe theorists." So far, I'm not seeing it.

Tony Sideaway's evidence is especially unconvincing. His diffs link to edits that obviously fall under the definition of vandalism, not cunning POV-pushing. If fringe theories, supported by reliable sources, cherry-picked or not, are included in our science articles, so what? If info on alternative theories are presented in an NPOV way and supported by reliable sources, what's wrong with that? No, fringe theories are not the issue here. The issue here is whether SA is following the rules or not. If not, then something needs to be done about it. Cla68 (talk) 09:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The way I see it, the purpose of an encyclopedia is to document established knowledge - established meaning facts that are notable and largely beyond dispute. Fringe theories, by definition, are the opposite of established knowledge, and are often in contradiction to it, even if some commentary is made of their work in reliable sources.  Inclusion of such things in an encyclopedia is not appropriate - except where controversies (i.e. UFO sightings), fame (i.e. homeopathy), or a rich history (i.e cold fusion) exists, in which the records and commentaries of those events are established knowledge by themselves.


 * Anything else is an open door for the inclusion of nonsense and using Wikipedia for advocacy and prominence that doesn't exist in the real world, which in some ways is what we're facing now, and SA is trying to fight. Phil153 (talk) 10:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The other point is that NPOV as relates to fringe theories is heavily weighted by the fact their theories and observations run counter to a much larger understanding of how the world works. You can't just ignore the large majority opinion when writing about fringe topics; the very core of a fringe theory is so contrary to countless scores of other observations and disproofs (collectively, established theory), that NPOV and responsibility toward the reader requires it be presented in that light.  The trouble is that often, not enough reliable sources examine fringe theories (or fringe theorists), so we're left with a situation in which advocates often have the weight of reliable sources on their side.  This is a failure that arises out of the combined polices of NPOV with WP:RS, which has never been addressed and needs to be before this problem goes away.  In the meantime, people like SA game the system however they can to make a good encyclopedia.  I don't think I can blame him for that, even if I disagree with some of the methods. Phil153 (talk) 10:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree with this. I am quite interested in fringe theories (I am after all a historian of medieval and Aristotelian 'science').  There should be description of fringe theories according to their prominence or popularity.  However, Wikipedia should not be used as a vehicle for the promotion of fringe ideas.  Simple as that.  And something has to be done to help editors who fight the daily battle against the vested interests who wish to use Wikipedia as such a vehicle.  Peter Damian (talk) 10:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Phil153 makes some very good points. Mathsci (talk) 16:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Editors who fight a daily battle (on whatever side of whatever dispute) should be admonished that Wikipedia is not a battleground, and if they can't or won't get the message, they should be banned. Dlabtot (talk) 15:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What about the daily battle against nationalist POV pushers fought by many administrators? Mathsci (talk) 16:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with this rhetorical question. Wikipedia is not a battleground is an official policy, which says in part: " Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Do not insult, harass, or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement.  "  Are you suggesting that administrators should insult, harass, or intimidate 'nationalist POV pushers'?  Are you suggesting that Administrators should not be expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation?  Please elucidate. Dlabtot (talk) 16:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it is a good thing when POV pushers and nationalistic edit warriors read Wikipedia. There is always a chance they might learn something. Jehochman Talk 17:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * @ Yes, if they read the right articles :) Of course, countering (rather than fighting!) nationalist POV pushers, as Moreschi does for example, has to be done according to the rules of wikipedia: calmness, civility and moderation as Dlabot rightly says. On one occasion the sockpuppet of a banned user came to my talk page (eg User:Log in, log out) to harangue me about WP:RS [not in connection with any mainspace edits of mine]: only the calm voice of reason could be used, no matter how high-pitched their nationalistic rhetoric became. Mathsci (talk) 17:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yup. In my experience POV pushers love it when you roll in the mud with them, but responding in an unfailingly cool and rational manner eventually drives them berserk. It's actually quite fun. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, at least you had what it took to give up the admin tools by choice. If you were one of SA's teachers, or he yours.... well, it shows.  —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 01:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The claim that my evidence is merely links to vandalism is flatly and categorically false.  Blatantly so. --TS 17:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, while a few of the diffs are borderline it's hard to imagine how edits like this and this and this could possibly be considered to "obviously fall under the definition of vandalism." I hope that the arbs exercise greater diligence when evaluating the evidence presented. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Those are definitely not vandalism. They look like attempts to promote "kookery", though I am unsure about which flavor. Jehochman Talk 18:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Blatant advocacy and soapboxing of fringe viewpoints is vandalism and should be treated as such, imho. Dlabtot (talk) 18:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well as a technical matter we do not and have not adopted that approach. --TS 18:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I wonder what would happen if we followed Cla68's advice and simply went about fully sourcing references to fringe theories? What do we do when a creationist comes along to evolution and inserts a sourced reference to intelligent design? How about homosexuality when an anti-homosexual comes along and inserts a paragraph about ex-gays? And of course the global warming article wouldn't be complete without a copious reference to the Dalton minimum, would it? The reason we make little reference to fringe ideas in these articles is, simply stated: the neutral point of view policy. --TS 18:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There is such a thing as WP:UNDUE, a detail of WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is not a random collection of facts.  If the fringy stuff is not relevant to the article, it has to be removed. These are editorial decisions.  I am not at all worried about Cla68's editorial judgment, given his extensive contributions of featured articles.  Indeed, one way to deal with a fringe infested topic is to brutally edit it up to featured article standards.  I arranged this exact treatment for Robert F. Kennedy assassination. Jehochman Talk 18:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, j.e., I think we're engaged in what one might call "vehemently agreeing with one another." WP:UNDUE is actually just a tagged redirect to a section of the Neutral point of view policy, as I'm sure you're aware.


 * As you may be aware, I'm no fan of the concept of the featured article, I have found the quality of those featured articles I have investigated to be abysmally low, and have been unrelenting in my criticism of the practice of writing featured articles. I've encountered featured articles that degenerated after being featured, and have documented the problems I encountered in attempting to remove the featured article tag from a palpably bad article.  But you may be able to convince me that the article you had featured benefited from the process and I will take a look at it now.  I'll get back to you. --TS 23:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have dealt with or seen fringe theories twice in articles I was actively engaged with. One, in this article, I took to the fringe theories noticeboard where it was noted that the sources backing up the theory weren't reliable, so me and a couple of other editors removed it.  Still, in order to hopefully placate future pushers of the theory by attempting a compromise, I kept a link to a website promoting it in the "Further reading" section, even though the website isn't a reliable source.  So far, it has worked.


 * In Port Chicago disaster, there were several instances of attempts to push a fringe, conspiracy theory in the article. The editor who has just completed some excellent work at hopefully taking to the article to FA-level quality, Binksternet, included a small section on the theory, written NPOV and sourced appropriately.


 * The point is, I just don't see why losing patience and cursing, threatening (even jokingly), ridiculing, or hounding pushers of fringe or conspiracy theories is ever necessary. There are ways of dealing with the issue without breaking our policies and guidelines.  Also, there is no need to be offended because a fringe theory we don't approve of is included in an article we like to edit (for an example of what I'm talking about, see the archives of the Global warming article's talk page at how the regular editors of that article reacted to attempts to put, no matter how reliably sourced, sections about global warming skepticism/criticism in the article.).  As others point out above, if text on fringe theories meet our standards for reliable sources, NPOV, and undue weight, then let the text stay in the article instead of trying to find ways to delete it. Cla68 (talk) 23:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Cla68, you seem to be confusing "fringe theory" with "fringe science". The two articles that you mention above have nothing to do with fringe science and the issues involved here. An example of a fringe science/pseudoscience article, in hibernation at present (it was adapted from a BLP which I put up for deletion), can be found here. Mathsci (talk) 00:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it is better to identify notable fringe theories and explain why they are scientifically rejected rather than to ignore them. The reader's interests are served by being informed about things like intelligent design.  We are not an encyclopedia of science; we are an encyclopedia of everything.  Jehochman Talk 00:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, but how do you do that under current Wikipedia policies? Unless multiple exceptional sources deal with the issue in detail, it's all too easy for fringe advocates to plausibly claim that debunkings violate policy, that their own favorable sources are more reliable, and so on.  Not many fringe topics have the mainstream coverage of something like Intelligent design.  Phil153 (talk) 00:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Your mention of placation seems to suggest that fringe pushers making enough noise and drama succeeded in bullying an excellent editor (yourself) into including topics against his better editorial judgment. In other words, we're getting a lower quality encyclopedia in return for keeping the peace.  To my way of thinking this is exactly what we should be trying to avoid.  (not that I disagree with your inclusions in the cases you cited; merely the reasoning you gave).


 * I'd also note that your examples are of some of the easier cases, and not at all fringe science, but fringe intepretations of historical events. Historical events generally have multiple reliable sources reporting the mainstream and completely overwhelming the reporting of fringe viewpoints.  In such cases it is very easy to marginalize fringe contributions under a number of WP policies.


 * It's a completely different kettle of fish with fringe science and paranormal topics, where the most reliable and potentially impartial sources often don't cover the topic, or don't cover it in proportion to the set of opinions that would exist if a larger number of intelligent, expert, independent sources had considered the topic. In addition, the topic matter often requires a more sophisticated knowledge of the philosophy and practice of science to appreciate why good editorial judgment should ignore minimize the weight of supposed positive evidence; the two year edit war which degraded the cold fusion article is a classic example of this. Phil153 (talk) 00:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think Cla68 is right when he says we shouldn't react to nonsense by "cursing". If we did that obviously we wouldn't get anywhere.


 * Cla68 seems to think that what he did--putting an unevaluated contribution into "further reading" was acceptable. No.  Don't do that.


 * If day after day I had to deal with people who, as Cla68 seems to suggest, thought it was acceptable to keep random untested references in an article, I might grow a little grouchy.


 * Social skills are important in building an encyclopedia. Getting things right is also important.


 * I hope Cla68 is joking about wanting to push denialism into the global warming article. Ideologically motivated anti-science content is very definitely not welcome.  It is almost frightening how consistently Cla68 sides with the nutters. --TS 02:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Tony, please strike your last sentence. Nothing is gained by personalizing the situation. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. But the world was already aware of my disquiet. --TS 03:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand Mathsci's comment about confusing "fringe science" with "fringe theories" but to me the issue is related enough to be treated similarly. Like Jehochman appears to be saying, it's better to include the fringe science/theories in the related articles and explain how the "mainstream" debunks them rather than trying to keep them out. Our readers are intelligent enough to read the different perspectives presented in the articles and decide for themselves what is true. This is a wiki which means we, all of us, collaborate in building it. Our policies and guidelines are intended to help foster a collaborative environment. If one of our editors is violating these policies, for whatever perhaps well-intentioned reasons, it is still contrary to our collaborative process here and must be corrected. Cla68 (talk) 10:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This I believe is a real problem. I can see a clear way of treating fringe science on wikipedia, just because of the sources. Discussions on the Bermuda triangle, the ghost in the vicarage, the Marie Celeste, etc, are out of the realm of science and there it is true that quite different criteria apply. Psychic seems to be borderline and problematic (the disputed claims of Rupert Sheldrake). Similarly for Uri Geller, where debunking has occurred in real life by professional conjurers like James Randi. I think it is quite important to distinguish between fringe science and these fringe theories. I added a fourth section of evidence precisely because I think the general public can have a whole set of miisconceptions about science. This has in the past not always been helped by coverage in the media: the BBC has occasionally produced some very misleading programmes about the paranormal; and science reporting in newspapers can often be sensationalist and highly inaccurate. It would be quite useful to clarify the scope of what exactly is meant by "fringe science".  Mathsci (talk) 15:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Obviously investigation of the Bermuda triangle is squarely in the realm of science, and the article reflects that fact. The Mary Celeste tale, once you disentangle it from the various fictional embellishments, isn't so much a mystery, but where some authors have invoked novel mechanisms there is, perforce, a scientific element much in the same vein as the Bermuda triangle case.


 * Ghosts, the paranormal, anything by Rupert Sheldrake, and anything by Uri Geller, should of course give primary weight to scientific evidence rather than the claims of the credulous. To say that these are in some way "out of the realm of science" is utterly unacceptable.


 * As I said, it's all science. There is no field of "alternative science" in which the criteria of science do not apply. --TS 16:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that the scientific method can always be applied, but the context of these paranormal phenomena is rather outside that of usual scientific research. Often these phenomena are not investigated by scientists. That's why I think it is helpful to distinguish between these fringe theories and controversial fringe science or pseudoscience that clearly lies within a given scientific discipline, like cold fusion, perpetual motion machine or water memory. Mathsci (talk) 06:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about "scientific evidence?" Which "scientific evidence" are you speaking of?  —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 02:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

When civility fails
I take the focus of "when civility fails" to indicate a wish to investigate the full scope of the problems facing us in producing a neutral, high quality encyclopedia. Here we have an encyclopedia with content on scientific subjects that is highly praised and has been evaluated highly, by an academic paper published in Nature no less, and yet our work on articles on some well established subjects is often compromised by attempts to give undue prominence to fringe points of view. No amount of civil discussion seems to deter those who think we should have room in our articles for a statement that lends credence to their favorite fringe science idea.

It's wrong to say "what does it matter?" Of course it matters if we fail to present information in a neutral and balanced way, because then we would become unconscious agents of fringe points of view. So we spend a lot of time just vigilantly watching science articles for the injection of bias and quietly removing it.

This is not (sorry, Cla68) removal of vandalism; for the most part these bad edits are unequivocally intended to improve the article, and of course we should be civil in our explanation of why it isn't acceptable to inject your personal global warming skepticism into an article on extinction event, why it isn't appropriate to insert creationist qualms on the causes of macroevolution into evolution as fact and theory, and so on. But still they come.

I have suggested that the solution to these problems is to raise morale and encourage those who want to clean up messy articles that have been filled with fringe ideas. I give as an example, the article Condon Committee, which really ought to be stubbed down and restarted if anyone has the courage to do it, because the article is heavily infected by slanted primary sources written by partisan members of the original investigation (actually I must check back and see how I got on with that--it's been some months now).

The question we should be asking is: how can we encourage editors to be bold in improving these slanted articles? It seems to me that the arbitration committee has in the past done so by granting more latitude to those who are seen to be "doing the right thing". This is less than ideal because you end up exacerbating the problems of edit warring and creating an unfriendly atmosphere.

So how do we make it more likely that our cautious and careful editors will feel free to handle nonsense in a bold way, without encouraging those who tend to treat every article like a battleground? I don't know, frankly. A fringe science noticeboard? A sourcing standards committee? For all I know these ideas have been tried since I last was here in the summer. We do need ideas, though. As I have shown in my evidence, articles on quite well established science are targeted by advocates of fringe science, and they're unlikely to knock off soon. --TS 18:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Art LaPella (talk) 22:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right, of course. An interesting enough lie will travel a thousand miles while the truth is pulling its boots on.  We're supposed to be savvy about that kind of thing.  Why is it so difficult to get this right in our science articles?  --TS 03:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but I don't understand the question. If we take the rules at face value without resorting to ScienceApologist's tactics, we can't publish criticism of a pseudoscience unless we can find written sources. Those sources won't exist if scientists can't be bothered refuting such nonsense. So if the pseudoscience has gotten enough attention to be notable, then being savvy doesn't help; we aren't supposed to publish original research. This would result in a totally pro-pseudoscience article. Hence my template. Art LaPella (talk) 23:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If a topic has gotten enough attention to be notable, and has not been refuted by scientists, then by whose authority would you classify it as pseudoscience? What would be wrong in that case with just representing the topic in terms of what has been published about it, as we do with other topics on wikipedia?  If it's nonsense, some place reliable will eventually say so, and then we can include that. Dicklyon (talk) 00:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "If it's nonsense, some place reliable will eventually say so." Saying this does not make it true. As a rule scientists do not waste their time commenting on patent nonsense -- there's too much real work to be done. Silence most definitely does not mean assent. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you provide an example of a notable fringe subject that is not covered by any mainstream sources? Jehochman Talk 00:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I would say that "a notable fringe subject that is not covered by any mainstream sources" is a contradiction in terms. Wikipedia's rather garbled and internally-inconsistent notability guideline seems to agree, depending on how one reads it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not a case of the broader topic not being covered, but specific theories or new evidence haven't been critically examined, or the field may not have been properly reviewed by realiable sources. Examples from cold fusion:
 * CETI Patterson Power Cell - note the first paragraph. Also note the lead time between the first claims made on Good Morning America and the popular press (establishing notability) and the first critical review in reliable sources (1999 and 2002), which aren't even full reviews.  For three years we're left with no reliable sources to critique something which is pure nonsense and likely a scam.
 * Reviews of the latest research or theories on cold fusion. The last was in 2004 by the DOE, and since then there have been two major reviews by proponents, one in a book published by Oxford University Press (Storms 2007) and another in a startup journal that is nonetheless peer reviewed, summarizing "new evidence" (Biberian 2007).  The mainstream just hasn't looked at them, but they're the same credulous nonsense repackaged by uncritical advocates.  But try arguing against giving weight to those claims under Wikipedia's policies on reliable sources - it's a nightmare and the source of all kinds of edit war.  Phil153 (talk) 01:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I said "pseudoscience", and Time Cube resorts to quoting a tabloid newspaper article that calls Time Cube's promoter a crank (which is fine). But I admit I had a harder time finding good examples than I expected, based on the usual debates on this subject. Art LaPella (talk) 07:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * To what is the header of this section referring? There seems to be an unstated premise here. Dlabtot (talk) 18:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It's my paraphrase of Casliber's suggestion: good starting point to thrash out some issues and novel solutions when application of civility diverges from the ultimate goal which is encyclopedia building.


 * Obviously we don't want to go encouraging people to adopt uncivil methods to deal with insistent injectors of anti-science and fringe science bias. Equally we don't want to encourage them to take up lots of our time trying to recycle tired arguments that have failed to gain traction in the scientific community.  We need to find new directions. --TS 18:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

On reflection, Casliber appears to be referring, specifically, to civil discussion that is used for purposes other than encyclopedia building. I'm not sure we can easily characterize the situation that way, but I haven't looked at all the evidence. I only know that I'd rather gnaw my left arm off than spend six months civilly explaining to creationist after creationist that intelligent design is not due a mention on evolution. --TS 19:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Feh. A few people say that, but reasonable people say that all we need to do is attribute, since skepticism is notable. However, SA, and others, have consistently portrayed professional skeptics as representing and speaking for the scientific consensus (yup) when they have neither the qualifications nor the authority to do so. In these cases they have pushed pseudoscience in the most natural sense of that term: something that claims the authority of science and is dressed up as science but is manifestly not science. IOW, no properly constructed experiments, no observation, no investigation, no peer-review; nothing but armchair rejections based on a priori speculation. That SA supports this radical form of radical promotional skepticism can be seen from his user page. That kind of POV pushing should have no place on Wiki. It would not be so bad if he was only rejecting the outer fringe of the fringe, but it is outrageous when he and his friends are rejecting the views of organisations like the British Medical Association or even wishing to be more radical in their negative claims than people like James Randi, Ray Hyman, James Alcock, Carl Sagan and the journal Nature etc. —— Martinphi    Ψ~Φ —— 02:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "no properly constructed experiments, no observation, no investigation, no peer-review" -- Indeed. If we were to require proper experiments, observations, investigations, and peer review from both proponents and critics the problem would be solved. But this would mean that most fringe views would not be covered at all. The problem is that we allow junk sources and cargo cult science to establish notability of fringe views, which opens the door to less-than-ideal sources for critical views, and here we are.  Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually that's right, and we should not be covering these subjects. But let me guess, you aren't willing to help me change the Notability guideline on that, are you?  And BTW, Randi et al are fine sources, notable ones.  It's just they have to be attributed, and not put on a soap box as the representatives of the collective judgement, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in EVERY relevant field of study.  That there is debunkery. —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 03:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * But hey! Thanks for admitting that the skeptical sources generally aren't scientists and usually aren't the mouthpieces of a scientific consensus (with a few exceptions like astrology and creationism).  That's important.  —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 03:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW, Comrade Boris is right that the Notability guideline should be a lot stricter in order to ensure sufficient mainstream sources. —— Martinphi    Ψ~Φ —— 02:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, TS, you don't understand our policy re the notability of ideas if you think ID doesn't get mentioned in evolution. It is mentioned, just as it should be "While many religions and denominations have reconciled their beliefs with evolution through various concepts of theistic evolution, there are many creationists who believe that evolution is contradicted by the creation myths found in their respective religions.[189]" —— Martinphi    Ψ~Φ —— 02:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've no problem with a mention of that type--one which correctly describes the religious qualms and does not misrepresent them, as intelligent design consciously does, as scientific in nature. --TS 06:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The context
Let's put this on the table.

Science doesn't bother a lot of people most of the time. If I describe oil and gas as a fossil fuel, most people won't turn a hair. The term "fossil" nowadays has biotic associations, and indeed the notion that oil and gas deposits were of biotic origin was known to Europeans some centuries ago. It's utterly uncontroversial and there's tons of evidence to support it.

Some Russian scientists speculated on abiotic origins, but nothing came of it.

But of course this matters a lot. If oil and gas are produced by some abiotic process deep within the earth then current theories, which assume that the deposits are of fixed size and mostly confined to the upper parts of the earth's crust, are based on fiction. Policy decisions made on the basis of the biotic theory would be wrong if that theory is incorrect.

And only this would explain the current contents of talk:fossil fuel, much of which is given over to discussion of the science instead of the editing of the article. The scientific consensus on the biotic theory is well established, so what are they arguing for? The answer is obvious: politics. --TS 04:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * We're not likely to rid wikipedia of politics, I agree. Can we at least rid it of unlawful and terroristic politics? Dicklyon (talk) 05:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think I would characterize the theory of abiotic origin of fossil fuels as either unlawful or terroristic.  We should of course present the theory in historical context and with due attention to its acceptance, or lack of such, in science. --TS 05:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No, certainly not. I meant that in fighting the politics, tactics like those that this case is about (ScienceApologist's) need not be tolerated. Dicklyon (talk) 05:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Obviously if an editor acts disruptively he can be sanctioned. An important focus of this case should be, in my opinion, how we maintain a friendly working environment in the face of a task which, it should be acknowledged, is sheer drudgery. One has only to look at the talk pages of popular scientific subjects to see that it is, by its nature, very repetitious work explaining to the umpteenth visitor that his personal theories do not go into the article.  We need to make sure those who go overboard are discouraged from doing so, and those who stay to do this difficult and necessary work are given the support they need. --TS 16:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It's really quite simple. When an editor argues or wikilawyers too much, they need to be told to stop, and if they don't, they get blocked for disruption (irrespective of the fact that they may be arguing politely).  No amount of structures or findings will resolve the problem until we have an admin corps willing to enforce the disruptive editing guideline.  Those defending these articles must try to maintain decorum.  Uninvolved administrators are not keen to assist somebody who is being combative or foul mouthed. Jehochman Talk 16:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Ahem! This sounds a wee bit rich! At some point, so far undefined, SA was allegedly under your guidance and tutelage as an admin, in which case what the hell were you doing the whole while ignoring him being so abusive, disruptive, combative and foulmouthed to other good faith editors? Did you turn a blind eye to all this or did you tacitly approve of his tactics? Maybe I have got it all wrong, in which case sorry, but it seems on the face of it that you attack SA on one account and then defend him on the other. Which way do you want to play it? thanks Peter morrell 20:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I tried to line up mentorship for SA with myself, User:Fritzpoll and User:AGK all helping. It seems that SA never really took advantage of the opportunity and that regretfully AGK became busy with other things and Fritzpoll took a wikibreak.  I monitored SA all along.  My subsequent reactions were based on his continued violations of decorum, unwillingness to heed advice, and apparent socking that occurred. Could you also explain what you mean by a wee bit rich?  I don't speak British. Jehochman Talk 00:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

SA tends to think that any sort of smoke screen is good enough to fool the admins, and since, as he said, they are "creampuffs" and just like the Arbitrators, they won't see through it. He's obviously right in a historical sense. The latest version is his mentorship with Durova, who ought to be smarter than that since she spends her life sniffing out bullshit. The mentorship with Jehochman et al was a similar ploy. Okay, let's assume good faith and just say that it turned out to merely prolong the disruption. Jehochman seems to approve of SA's debunking, and he advocates abuse of admin tools to ban/block users for the content of their edits, but he does not approve of SA's disruption, because he thinks debunking is more effective if done without all the fireworks. The trouble with Jehochman's ideas is that I have no doubt that he believes that I am such a disruptor. However, generally I edit with the consensus, or else help create consensus. I therefore believe that he's really talking about a form of Truth pushing, rather than editors who go against consensus. Since the consensus generally goes against the debunkers on Wikipedia (in individual cases where more NPOV skeptics are involved like Ryan Paddy's tenure on Parapsychology), Jehochman would fail without SA&friends tactics: because without those tactics, more neutral editors would get involved, debunking would be out, and the only way he'd be able to do anything is to enforce content.... which would be obvious in the end. So, Jehochman, that's my response to your threat on "fringe editors" when you proposed banning SA in the Cold Fusion ArbCom. —— Martinphi    Ψ~Φ —— 02:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

A wee bit rich? it means you contradicted yourself: you said, ''Those defending these articles must try to maintain decorum. Uninvolved administrators are not keen to assist somebody who is being combative or foul mouthed.'' OK, SA became like that on numerous occasions but you, as his so-called mentor, just stood back and let him & did nothing. WHY? why did you not sanction a combative and foulmouthed editor? hope that clarifies my "british." Peter morrell 07:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually Peter, I'm with you. It's rather two faced to say "I was his mentor while I sat by and watched him go crazy but by jingo look at all the evidence that I've gathered in the meantime..."  Shot info (talk) 12:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's see this explained
A mainstream scientist from California State Polytechnic University, Pomona says about SA and friends:


 * Even after all these years, it still surprises me that fundamentalism smells the same, regardless of the "principles" considered fundamental. But I did see one thing among the kilobytes of stereotyped, reactionary drivel that would be of use to us plant editors, were we allowed to edit our articles without the "help" of the fundies: Almost every plant has the potential to be used in a homeopathic preparation (thus, at an extreme, we could have in every plant article "this plant could be used in the process of making a homeopathic preparation"). It seems to me (and fundies need not respond; I'm already aware of your arguments) that we should approach homeopathy in an anthropological context: If the practice of homeopathy were as deprecated as the practice of animal magnetism, we could still study it as a cultural phenomenon, and part of our source material would be the classical literature on the subject. Again in parallel to animal magnetism, to count a modern book supporting the use of animal magnetism as being equal to works from the days of Mesmer would be undue weight. There must be classical works on homeopathy. We should look to them for references. Sadly, looking is all we will be able to do, since the fundies will still delete such references. But at least we will have the knowledge that we acted as scholars.--Curtis Clark (talk) 18:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * (above indented and italicised by TS)

Please explain how SA and friends were the the NPOV representatives of mainstream scientists at Wikipeida and how this misguided fringe POV pusher nutjob should be banned. —— Martinphi    Ψ~Φ —— 03:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "We should approach homeopathy in an anthropological context...we could still study it as a cultural phenomenon, and part of our source material would be the classical literature on the subject." This is essentially my own view. If someone says, e.g., that pigs live in trees so that they can better communicate with our dead ancestors who are piloting low-flying UFOs, the interesting thing to me is the sociological question of what would cause someone to believe such a thing. I've long been fascinated with such subjects, and in the days before Al Gore invented the Internet, I spent many hours listening to fringe stuff on late-night shortwave radio. The problem comes when people insist that pigs really do live in trees and really do communicate with the beyond (perhaps using broken radios). It's very similar to how one would cover religion. Most of it has nothing to do with science. But when people try to pretend that religion is science, a scientific perspective becomes relevant. Rambling a bit here. So kill me. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The pigs would have trouble due to electronic voice phenomena interfering with their communications. Jehochman Talk 05:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If it's pertinent to the Arbiration, shouldn't you be doing the explaining? Otherwise, is it pertinent?  And if it's not pertinent, then why ask the irrelevant question? Shot info (talk) 04:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Quotable Quote "In addition, they poison the Wikipedia environment by continual denigration of the subjects and anyone who believes in them, merely avoiding stating specific usernames." So I wonder who is avoiding stating specific usernames above...hmmm :-)  Shot info (talk) 04:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No explanation needed; it speaks for itself... Woonpton (talk) 04:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

That's about what I thought.... Comrade Boris, no one is objecting to what you say, only to the debunking. I'm sure explaining why people believe what they do is not something which a fringe person would object to. You give all notable perspectives on the matter, including theirs, which is notable since they're the subjects. —— Martinphi    Ψ~Φ —— 04:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "and not to the others" LOL - typical though - ask a leading question and ignore the answers that you don't want while decrying all those nasty editors that are conveniently slapped with a label (previously "skeptic" now "debunker"). Shot info (talk) 04:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Just so there's no misunderstanding, Martinphi, you and I apparently agree that the passage speaks for itself, but would probably disagree entirely on what we think it says, and who it reflects on in what way. Woonpton (talk) 05:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

No, shot, previously "pseudoskeptic" now "debunker" because it is often the same thing but doesn't sound insulting, as some self-identify that way. Also, a debunker is more specifically non-NPOV than a pseudoskeptic, because a pseudoskeptic might choose to edit in an NPOV way. Both have specific behavioral definitions, unlike kook and nutjob.

BTW, what Comrade Boris said doesn't address the situation, either. The issue is: how and why did a professor of biological sciences come to regard SA and his apologists as fundamentalists, if all they were doing was supporting mainstream science. —— Martinphi    Ψ~Φ —— 05:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Why does this sound like a prepared Davkal speech? And (like answered to Davkal) the answer is:  Anybody is allowed to have an opinion.  But thanks for the another example of the quote mining and selective use of sources, something that SA and his apologists have to put up with time and time again by the cadre of blocked users and their enablers (like you).  However feel free to point out it's revelance to this Arb case.  Shot info (talk) 05:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I took the liberty of indenting and italicizing the quotation of a comment by Curtis Clark with which Martinphi opened this section. I hope it helps readability.


 * The original comment can be seen in context in an archive of the talk page for WikiProject Plants, here.


 * My own response is that I don't think we should be removing well sourced information about the use of plants in homeopathy from articles about those plants. I don't think removing such information makes Wikipedia more neutral because I don't think including that information skews Wikipedia's coverage. --TS 05:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks- there are a range of editors here. I doubt, as I said, that we'd have much if any trouble in editing an article together.  Still doesn't answer the question as put, though "stereotyped, reactionary drivel". —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 05:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I couldn't make any sense of your question as put. You seemed to be sarcastically calling this fellow a nutjob and some other editors representatives of mainstream science, which looked to me like a subtle misdirection and unworthy of response.  See "have you stopped beating your wife?" --TS 06:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Let me ask it again then: How is it that a mainstream scientist (and I don't think he was the only one) called ScienceApologist and his friends fundamentalists who spew stereotyped, reactionary drivel? (In relation to their debates around Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants)

(BTW, you guys inability to satisfactorily answer this is looking like good evidence. So try your best, and tomorrow I'll try and dig up some more mainstream scientist's comments- MrDarwin maybe?) —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 06:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't moon the jury. --TS 06:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've now looked at the full exchange from which Curtis Clark's comment was taken (see here). Martin, you have taken Clark's comment out of context and are twisting it from the specific setting in which it was made (a reasoned objection to total elimination of mentions of homeopathy) into something altogether different, i.e., a blanket, unconditional condemnation of SA and all who agree with him. This is most disappointing. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 06:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * To top it, he was giving a harsh reply to a trolling comment from banned user Davkal (using sock User:Number48) --Enric Naval (talk) 07:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I did not imply that the context extended beyond the scope of their interactions with Curtis Clark. Perhaps no one has the expertise ability to fully judge SA's edits to all the articles he edits. Nevertheless, I have revised the question above to make it obvious that I am not suggesting that Clark had the stupidity to condemn all of SA's editing in one sweeping gesture.  He was merely talking about those articles where he had seen SA's action, and on which he was an expert. —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 07:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * IOW, the context is not universal. So what? —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 07:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I know you're trying to illuminate what you think is a more general problem, but I think your method here is likely to alienate rather than encourage introspection. For instance you attribute a lot more to Science Apologist than this one quotation can support, and you also refer to Science Apologist's supposed legion of followers.  If we have learned one thing from recent arbitrations, it is that Science Apologist's work is spread all too thinly over a vast range of articles in which he is usually encountering a lot of civil POV pushers who are actively damaging the atmosphere and working environment of Wikipedia.  When people like Science Apologist engage in problematic behavior, we have to weigh the harm they do carefully because it's difficult to see how to remedy the situation without making it worse. --TS 07:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

So, everyone, please again explain how within the context of Wikiproject plants, did a mainstream scientist come to the conclusion that ScienceApologist and his friends were acting as fundamentalists who spew stereotyped, reactionary drivel? Another at that table said "In my opinion, what User:ScienceApologist and User:PouponOnToast are doing is nothing short of far-reaching vandalism in attempting to delete all homeopathic references, however neutrally worded, from numerous Wikipedia articles." . You are not doing very well before the jury. If SA and friends are not actually mainstream (their only defense) but in fact debunking, where are they then? The undisputed extreme disruption of multifarious types looks much better beside "defender of NPOV and mainstream science" than beside "fundamentalist stereotyped reactionary drivel." In the one case, you almost have the defense of carpet and atom bombing in WWII, in the other the defense of North Korea or the Bush administration. —— Martinphi    Ψ~Φ —— 07:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you'd better stop now. You've been politely reminded that you are stretching this much, much further than the material and the circumstances can justify.  That should be enough. --TS 08:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It is completely unreasonable to expect us to accept "proof by example", statements taken out of context or to take into account affiliations. In the real world it is not necessarily true that the opinions of an individual academic, even if distinguished, necessarily represent consensus (eg take Brian Josephson or Peter Duesberg). The only point that could be of value from this section is Martin's persistent use of a fallacious argument based on the flimsiest of evidence taken out of context. Please stop, Martin. Mathsci (talk) 15:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, the whole point was to give you guys a chance to respond. I didn't want to put it up there as evidence when it might have a hole in it I couldn't see. However, if this is the best you can do, I must really have a case. And BTW, I'm delighted to see that Clark has answered your "concern" than I was stretching it too far. —— Martinphi    Ψ~Φ —— 19:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * What does this "you guys" thing mean? Whom are you addressing? You're still obviously pushing this much further than it merits, and nothing Clark has said addresses that problem.   It seems to me that you're asking a leading question and acting surprised that you don't get a satisfactory answer.  The reason is that in order to answer the question one must accept several bizarre and unfounded insinuations.   To say that this kind of behavior is nauseating would be an understatement.  --TS 17:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Anyone who's defending the way ScienceApologist and his friends treat fringe topics. If you didn't like the question, you could have suggested a better one the way Boris did.  When he suggested a better one, I changed the question.  Still didn't get an answer. —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * To make it absolutely clear, my concern is not "the way ScienceApologist and his friends treat fringe topics", it's the way they treat other editors.--Curtis Clark (talk) 02:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * However, the fact you think it is a question like "are you still beating your wife" indicates that you think it is a question to which there is no answer that you like. That says volumes, and really constitutes an answer.  I think I'll make this point in my evidence section. —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 21:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi there!
I'm not dead yet. If someone wants to know what I meant, they could ask me. I still stand by every word I wrote, even more so after time has passed and I have read this RfA. Here are my specific points:


 * 1) "Science fundamentalism" is a pseudoscience at worst, and a political phenomenon at best, because it assumes that examination of evidence, experimentation, falsification, and the other tools of scientists are insufficient to discredit specific ideas, and that those ideas must be suppressed, or "debunked" in a manner beyond application of the tools of science. As a political movement, IMO science fundamentalism has done great harm to science, leading the gullible to believe that science is nothing more than a belief system.
 * 2) Homeopathy as a science is bunk. Homeopathy as a religious healing practice is fascinating, but every homeopath I have ever asked has been emphatic that it is not religion or magick, but rather science. Homeopathy as an anthropological practice is real.
 * 3) ScienceApologist is an irritating editor, who in my view does more harm than good. I know of one good botany editor who left Wikipedia largely because of the brouhaha over mention of homeopathic uses in plant articles. For my part, I wouldn't be saddened to see ScienceApologist banned, but I don't feel strongly enough about it to work toward that goal.
 * 4) It was unsurprising to me to have non-botanists tell botanists how to write their articles; it wasn't the first time and it won't be the last. Despite that, all uses of plants that are documented in reliable sources should be mentioned in plant articles. It is not necessary that the efficacy of homeopathy be documented (in fact, it is most likely impossible); all that is necessary is to document that homeopaths use(d) a specific plant. Disallowing that is suppression and censorship.

I'd be happy to elaborate if anyone is interested.--Curtis Clark (talk) 17:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like to hear you elaborate, because this has been brought up as evidence of SA's inappropriate behavior. A couple of points:
 * Homeopathy isn't a religious healing practice in any sense - its entire premise rests on falsifiable claims about nature. It makes no claims to the supernatural.  Homeopathic practitioners agree, as you note.


 * Your implication that non-botanists have no business telling botanists what they should write in plant articles of an encyclopedia is unfounded IMO, and seems to suggest that experts own an article ("their articles"). If anyone has a claim to that kind of editorial privilege, it is professional editors and not professional botanists.  You certainly don't have a greater claim to editorial right when it comes to material totally unrelated to the science of botany.


 * Your claim that all the all the uses of a particular plant should be documented has issues, and is certainly not a given. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.  There are hundreds of branches of folk medicine and hundreds of different cuisines and beliefs about particular plants in different ethnic group; documenting them all in an article about a particular species would make an absolute mess.  In the case of homeopathy, its relationship to a particular plant is questionable - there is little notable cultural history surrounding its use of that particular species and not a single molecule of that species end up in final preparation.  Keeping such extraneous information out seems like good editorial judgment.  For comparison, have a look at the frequency of mention in other, professional encyclopedias.  Phil153 (talk) 18:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * In short, I believe that your contentions about SA's actions are largely based on a legitimate and healthy disagreement about policy, and the nature of that disagreement hasn't been recognized as such by your comments. Rather, you have suggested that SA's position was wrong, end of story.


 * I'd also appreciate if you'd elaborate on how SA is doing scientific fundamentalism and not merely zealously trying to repesent fringe ideas with the appropriate weight (so that people aren't misled by the unchallenged attempts of proponents to give their subject more coverage or credibility than it otherwise has).  Phil153 (talk) 18:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm glad we agree that homeopathy is not a religion.
 * I see WP:OWN brought up repeatedly as a shorthand for "Training in and experience with the subject, and experience with writing about the subject or teaching the subject to general audiences, has little importance in Wikipedia." I trust that's not your point, but I hope you'll clarify. I'm also unsure what you mean by "professional editor". Are some Wikipedians paid to edit?
 * Your point is a fair one, but I'm not convinced you have presented it in a fair manner. First, the use of a plant in homeopathy may be notable because, by the doctrine of similars, there should be some physiological effect of the plant in high dosage that mimics the condition that the homeopathic preparation is supposed to cure (and one might expect a homeopath to have paid attention to that). In the case of some plants, this may be the only piece of evidence of the plant's physiological effects in high dosage. It is arguably no worse than "Early settlers saw aboriginal inhabitants using it for toothache." Arguably neither of the statements need remain (unless very little else can be said about the species), but the statements about homeopathy are singled out for deletion, whereas there is no similar campaign (that I know of) against native uses. A statement a priori that certain realms of knowledge are "non-notable" in any circumstance seems to me rather POV. With respect to other professional encyclopedias, they don't often have articles on single episodes of television series, either. But encyclopedic reference books specifically about plants do indeed include information about uses, and people who are interested in plants (not just botanists) find such information to be useful enough that such works continue to include it.


 * I believe the way SA treats other editors is wrong. I have seen editors community-banned for less. IMO the only reason SA remains is that he supports ideologies that are important to other influential Wikipedians. If he didn't act like such a dick, I'd probably agree with him more often, too. My "disagreement about policy" is that policy seems to be unequally applied depending on the views of an editor.


 * Science fundamentalism, like any other fundamentalism, is a slippery slope. I don't see SA zealously trying to represent fringe ideas at all; I see him zealously trying to suppress them (I have no diffs any different from all those already presented elsewhere). I'm no newbie when it comes to fringe science; I taught evolution for a number of years. When I debated Duane Gish, I analyzed accounts of other debates, and chose to drive home the point that the creationists had no research program to determine which were the originally created kinds (this was before baraminology), which should be central to any creationist biology. Gish was flummoxed; he hadn't encountered that one before. People afterward told me that, despite their pastors' pronouncements, they could see that creationism didn't really make sense. So, yes, I have some experience in keeping people from being mislead. I never insulted Gish once, and I was even friendly to the group of "jesus freaks" who surrounded me after the debate quoting scripture. I never suppressed the discussion of creationism in my evolution classes, but rather pointed the students toward the key questions that creationism would need to answer if a science of biology were to be based on it.


 * Perhaps the differences between me and SA are just differences in personality. But when I see him pissing off potential allies as well as opponents, it's hard for me to see how that benefits the encyclopedia.--Curtis Clark (talk) 19:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think homeopathy is indeed a good example of the general problem, and maybe somewhat of the SA problem. You're both right, except where Phil says "Homeopathic practitioners agree, as you note."  They agree it's not religion, but how they try to connect it with science varies.  It shouldn't matter that various editors might regard it more as religion, science, or pseudoscience.  It has millions (I think) of adherents in the US and lots more in other countries; it shouldn't be treated much differently from other belief systems, including religion.  It is not necessary for science apologists to trample the article just because the article describes homeopathic beliefs in their own terms.  There's plenty of room to talk about the reaction of science without censoring the ideas of homeopathy.  As to whether to mention homeopathic uses in botany articles, I don't agree that we should aspire toward the goal that "all uses of plants that are documented in reliable sources should be mentioned in plant articles."  But if there is significant mention of a plant's homeopathic use in more than just one big homeopathic compendium or something, then I'd see no reason to remove mention of if; I don't know how that relates to the SA argument, as I don't hang out on botany articles.  But he does his best to trash the ideas of concepts that he classifies as pseudoscience, and he does so with little respect for other editors or normal decorum, and that's why we're here. Dicklyon (talk) 18:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Curtis Clark, I guess I was under the impression you'd left, or I would have said something. I have to admit it didn't occur to me. Now that you've been so great as to come along, I do have a question: you say you stand by what you said about the way ScienceApologist was working in articles related to Wikiproject plants. My question is: does that generally apply to how his friends were acting? I mean people like OrangeMarlin, •Jim62sch•, Shot info, and perhaps others? That is important to my case, because I contend that SA is only a minor problem, and the real problem is the general debunking going on, not any single editor.

Response to Phil153: Ownership by experts is something SA and his friends have been arguing for. —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 20:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As far as my being gone, it's always possible to check my contributions. The one who's "gone" is MrDarwin, although I and others have apprised him off-wiki of this RfA.


 * In answer to your question, demonstrating the unsupportability of a proposition through citations of reliable sources definitely has a place in Wikipedia; debunking, being necessarily POV, doesn't. Drawing the line between the two isn't easy. I went back and re-read the plants discussion; "his friends" include colleagues that I respect and work well with. I see the broad issue as being this: When an editor misbehaves and is allowed to do so, other editors will take that as permission also to misbehave. In sharks it would be called a feeding frenzy, although I doubt that the neurological bases are the same in humans. To the extent that SA is a catalyst, the situation would be less severe if he were gone (hmmm, that suggests an experiment...). Alternately, another of "his friends" might move into the unoccupied niche. But I disagree with the general premise that there are "problems" on Wikipedia independent of the people involved in them. Does that answer your question?--Curtis Clark (talk) 20:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think so, yes: you believe that debunking is wrong, and that SA incites his friends to do it. To the extent they do it without him as a ringleader, it is still wrong.


 * However, you don't really know to what extent they would do it without SA there to lead them. That about right?


 * I think we define debunking in the same way, re your posts. I didn't mean to imply that there were problems separate from the people involved- I don't think there are. —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 22:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Curtis Clark, sounds to me like you debunked Gish by demonstrating that the concept of the created kind, as used by Gish and other creationists, was dubious. If there is another accepted meaning to debunking, I'm not aware of it.  I'm not familiar with ScienceApologist, so I couldn't comment on that aspect of it, but it seems to me that you are an expert debunker. --TS 17:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * To me, an important part of "debunking" is a prior belief that one is right, unsupported by critical thinking. My approach to creationism has always been "what if they are right?" (btw, I have no religious reasons to believe that they are). As a result, I have examined their "claims" in the field that I know best, biology, and found them inadequate to explain the evidence using the tools of science. But I (and many other systematic biologists) trace my academic lineage back to Carl Linnaeus, who was one of the greatest creation scientists of all time (because he had a methodology to address the chief question, "what are the originally created kinds"). In that endeavor, he failed.


 * I'm old enough to remember when continental drift was "fringe science". Had Wikipedia been around in the 1960s, it would undoubtedly have treated it so, and there would have, no doubt, been "debunkers". Funny the way that one turned out. What that taught me (in part through my acquaintance with Dan Axelrod, the paleobotanist, who had to eat his words) is that it's important to avoid ego-attachments to specific scientific ideas. In my view, "debunking" is often associated with an ego-attachment.--Curtis Clark (talk) 18:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * In my view, advocating in favor of a fringe topic is even more strongly associated with ego-attachment. Our same hypothetical 1960s Wikipedia would also have treated the then-fringe theory of Polywater similarly.  There would, no doubt, have been vile "debunkers" claiming that there was some sort of problem with this wonderful new science espoused by the noble non-debunkers.  What would you say to the editors in that dispute or in any of the many other fringe science topics of that day?  Let's not pretend that all fringe science is like continental drift.
 * The fact is that there were hundreds of polywater-type theories that really were wrong and well deserving of skepticism (many of them thankfully forgotten now) for every continental drift theory. To focus on the very rare exceptions where widely rejected theories turned out to be true (rather than the far more common case of being false) to make generalizations about how we should treat all theories currently thought implausible is selection bias.--Noren (talk) 19:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't misunderstand. Had a 1960s Wikipedia held continental drift to be fringe science, that would have been exactly the right thing to do. But individuals who held to the fixity of continents as a belief system, rather than something subject to scientific scrutiny, didn't fare well thereafter; for some of them, it was career-ending. I have nothing against belief systems (I hold several myself), but they have to be put aside, often actively, when doing good science.--Curtis Clark (talk) 02:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not the place for advocacy. Period. It doesn't matter on what 'side' of whatever issue. Dlabtot (talk) 19:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed.--Curtis Clark (talk) 02:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

On Homeopathy: : No religion, eh? This is one of the most respected papers on "how homeopathy works" within the homeopatic apologist group. It's cited by Lionel Milgrom in his pseudo-quantum mechanical explanations. Likewise, Hahnemann said that homeopathy works by bringing out the spirit-like medicinal properties contained in a plant or treatment. Homeopathy may not be religion, but it has a very long history of mysticism. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 19:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Exactly! It's not science, and it's not religion.  It is what it is. Dicklyon (talk) 19:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Small study says that Wikipedians are 'closed' and 'disagreable'
For what it's worth, according to New Scientist (a news magazine ! Beerk), a personality test of 69 contributors to wikipedia showed that they scored low for agreableness and openness to new ideas. The most surprising is that the researcher was surprised! Pcarbonn (talk) 19:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Isn't that what you want in encyclopedia editors? Phil153 (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, we want an encyclopedia that our readers like. Readers seem to be much more open to new ideas than contributors.  Let's try to please them.  Pcarbonn (talk) 20:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * How about a spectrum of attitudes? Our job is not to please readers, but to make information accessible. Dicklyon (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * By that criteria, the Palestinian Wikipedia should say lots of bad stuff about Jews (and vice versa). Phil153 (talk) 05:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm curious as to why Phil153 thinks that wikipedia editors should be 'closed' and 'disagreable'. Please elaborate. Pcarbonn (talk) 11:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

This is good proof of what I've been saying: NPOV editors have been driven off by the trolls. —— Martinphi    Ψ~Φ —— 22:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure it's not proof of anything; there are still plenty of good NPOV editors around, in spite of the behaviors by SA that may have driven a few away. Dicklyon (talk) 23:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If I did research, I could name I'm guessing about 30. That's the highly active ones.  Far more than a few. —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 00:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I hate to be the voice of SPOV here :P - but this is a "rapid communication" which doesn't mention how the subjects were recruited. Talk page messages? Noticeboards? How was being an  "active Wikipedia user" defined - one edit 5 months ago, or one edit every 2 minutes? How were the controls recruited? Are people who respond to an online questionnaire a representative sample? At the risk of sounding closed-minded and disagreeable, you can't generalize personality traits to a group without explaining how you collected your sample - that's a major source of bias and confounding, and its omission renders the paper worthless except as a conversation starter. MastCell Talk 05:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Non-extraordinary claims do not require extraordinary proof. It's the extraordinary claims where you have to wait for the scientists to die. —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 06:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's got nothing to do with extraordinary proof. The proof required for all claims is the same, except for those where multiple rigorous observations have already established a pattern of fact.  In this case, MastCell's objections are simple case of a study not supporting what it's claiming to show.  The lower standard of proof you advocate for things you think are "possibly or probably true" is known as confirmation bias. Phil153 (talk) 07:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, Phil and Mastcell, you both know better than to argue with ignorance - particularly the sort that Martin specialises in. It just wastes pixels...  Shot info (talk) 07:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed, I posted this paper as a conversation starter, not as evidence. The evidence is in front of us and plain to see. Pcarbonn (talk)


 * I'm curious as to why Pcarbonn thinks that his posting of a "conversation starter" doesn't match the classic description of what is called "trolling". Please elaborate.  Shot info (talk) 11:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not trolling, because this conversation, or talk, is directly related to the topic at hand, and that's what talk page are about. I don't see how it disrupts our work. And the stated opinion is not mine, but one from a news magazine that many editors like to see as "mainstream".  Pcarbonn (talk) 11:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * So how exactly is it directly related to the topic at hand? Because it appears that several people have answered your question, but you seem to be engaged in a disruptive editing technique - ignoring the responses you don't like and cherry picking those that you think will allow the disruption to continue.  Naturally you don't think it's trolling but it meets the criteria of it.  Shot info (talk) 12:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If it's related to the topic at hand, it should be added to the evidence page. If it's just an attempt to get a rise out of some editors, posting it here would likely have that effect. --TS 17:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I've got a hint for you, Pcarbonn, DFTT. —— Martinphi    Ψ~Φ —— 20:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I had figured it out already. Pcarbonn (talk) 21:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

What retraction?
Jehochman said that SA has retracted a statement. Where has he made this retraction? Can we see the diff please or do we just take Jehochman's word these days as sufficient evidence for anything? Also, if the retraction is valid, does this signal a major shift in SAs behaviour? is he filled with remorse for the way he has behaved and vowed to be civil in future? If not, then the so-called retraction seems pretty worthless. thanks Peter morrell 08:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not believe there was every any retraction. —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 05:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is the diff Peter Morell asks for, which Jehochman has now also inserted in his evidence section. It's a little absurd to value SA's statement being "retracted", since it was a) ironic, and b) misquoted to begin with, please see,  , but whatever. If you click on my links, you will see why I for my part would rather see Jehochman's and Seicer's silly evidence retracted. Bishonen | talk 12:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC).


 * So, not a full retraction then. More like a clarification of intended targets. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh clerks

 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:PhysicsEng, User:81.131.6.201,. Hipocrite (talk) 05:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * What is a link to my post doing here?


 * It is not civil to call other editors trolls. Hipocrite (talk) 06:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "Heh, Phil and Mastcell, you both know better than to argue with ignorance - particularly the sort that Martin specialises in. It just wastes pixels... Shot info (talk) 07:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)"


 * "I'm curious as to why Pcarbonn thinks that his posting of a "conversation starter" doesn't match the classic description of what is called "trolling". Please elaborate. Shot info"


 * I call that trolling- he called me ignorant and a tendentious editor, and he called Pcarbonn's post trolling, which it obviously wasn't. I didn't call him a troll.  I called his behavior, which is per usual, trolling.  Not like it's a one-time thing.  Or I could have called his behavior trolling.  Actually, I didn't name names.  If someone figured it out, so be it.


 * BTW, Hipocrite, are you PouponOnToast? —— Martinphi    Ψ~Φ —— 06:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Stop this, now, please. Daniel (talk) 06:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Oh Clerks 2

 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

While you're at it, you might investigate the abuse of sockpuppets by

User:Hipocrite who is User:PouponOnToast who has a long history of shilling for SA and who used his other identity user:DepartedUser to confess to abusing numerous IPs to edit war on Cold Fusion (inlcuding breaking 3rr) (good standing - LOL) and to attempt to out editors on SA's talk page, despite having pledged to avoid drama and controvesry. Given that this user has repeatedly gamed the system using numerous accounts and is now back to his original which does not contain all the block logs of his others, is it not time to get clear about how exactly how many he has on the go at this time and ask him to use one like everybody else.74.63.224.66 (talk) 06:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a matter for the arbitrators, not the clerks. Please feel free to file a motion to have the Committee investigate on the Workshop page, present relevant evidence at the Evidence page, and suggest possible proposals for the final decision on the Workshop page. Daniel (talk) 06:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm just bringing to your attention the fact that someone is active on this page who gets through more socks than an Antarctic millipede and who has been abusing those socks/IPs in the last few months all to the same end. As an official of Wikipedia you now have the choice to do something about that or not.74.63.224.66 (talk) 06:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not advocate for positions within a dispute, especially not when acting as clerk. It's your job to get an arbitrator to action this and confirm it, and suggest a course of action. Unless someone is a banned user or is abusing multiple accounts on this page, it's not my job to deal with it; that needs to be addressed in the final decision. Daniel (talk) 06:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Lets not continue this here. The appropriate venues are outlined in my above post. Daniel (talk) 07:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New Energy Times
The clerk Tznkai has been contacted on his talk page concerning the ban of PCarbonn from the cold fusion article by a writer for the fringe journal New Energy Times. It is unclear if the editor User:StevenBKrivit realizes that Tznkai was posting in his capacity as a clerk. Since the user was presumably aware of this ArbCom case, this interference - the suggestion that an article is currently being written for New Energy Times on Pcarbonn's ban - seems to be of the kind that Tony Sidaway was mentioning. Mathsci (talk) 14:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Greetings Mathsci. I hope you don't mind if I butt in and join the conversation about myself here. I did not know what Tznkai's capacity was. There was no immediate indication of his designated role or authority, aside from the fact that he posted a banner which, presumably, will appear on the page for a year that indicates Wikipedia has made a judgment against Pcarbonn, which presumably is appropriate and commensurate with the consequences of the banner. If there is someone to whom it would more appropriate to respond to my enquiry as I made to Tznkai, would you be so kind as to redirect me? (This assumes that the organization to which you volunteer responds to the media.) Contrary to your speculation and innuendo, "the user" is not writing an article about the Pcarbonn case; this is only a side-issue to the article that "the user" is writing for New Energy Times about Wikipedia's handling of fringe science. I welcome comments and conversation. web2@newenergytimes.com


 * StevenBKrivit (talk) 01:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I was only repeating what you wrote on Tznkai's talk page about the ban of Pcarbonn. If in the meantime you have decided to write about fringe science, it's probably a good idea to wait until this ArbCom case has finished. As a wikipedia editor, you can find out about the functioning of wikipedia in the normal way (click on the links on the left to get to help pages). Is New Energy Times not an "alternative science" pro-cold fusion journal and are you not in fact the editor and publisher? In the latest edition of your newsletter there are assertions that the physicist Robert L. Park cannot be a scientist. However, on wikipedia such assertions would violate all policies of WP:BLP and would probably result in an indefinite ban on any editor who tried to include such claims in Park's biography. This is how wikipedia functions. Good luck, Mathsci (talk) 06:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Mathsci. If my message to Tznkai confused you, I am sorry. Please accept my apologies. Of course another part of how Wikipedia functions, as I understand, is the principle of assuming good faith. So, for example, one would not  (as you did) accuse another member of Wikipedia (me) of attempting to cause "interference," right? At the risk of sounding silly, can't we all just get along?


 * I appreciate your questions but considering that your real-life identity is "cloaked," I am reluctant, but not entirely aversive to respond to you. I understand the reasons; stalking, privacy, trolls, etc. so you needn't defend. On the other hand, I'll answer any question to any real person who can show a legitimate reason for asking.


 * I take exception to your labeling of me as a Wikipedia "editor." It would be more accurate to state Wikipedia "member." Your labelling of me as an "editor" is a misrepresentation because it could cause people to mistakenly assume that I am an editor of the "cold fusion," page, which I am not. I have very few edits to (non-talk) pages, most of my contributions are attempts to support (read: help other people) discussion in talk pages. I learned a long time ago that it was not appropriate for me to provide my own OR on a topic in which I was a subject matter expert. One of my few edits to (non-talk) pages was the correction of an error in the lead sentence of the article on thermonuclear fusion. My other contributions have been to donate some of my photography for use in Wikipedia.


 * It is inaccurate for you to suggest that New Energy Times is a "pro-cold fusion journal." It was at one time, but your information is now out of date. Please read the presentation I gave at the American Chemical Society annual meeting in August. (Find it under the About menu at New Energy Times). Also please read my article in New Energy Times Issue #30, "It Doesn't Look Like Fusion." (Find it under the News menu.)


 * Technically, I agree with your point about the Park comment as it would apply to Wiki. But it's not published in Wiki and therefore it is irrelevant: The rules in Wiki are the rules in Wiki, not the real world. It also doesn't help for you to cast an aspersion that what happens outside of Wiki (in New Energy Times for example) has any relation to what would get banned if it happened within Wiki. Like your first message, your second represents another character attack. I respectfully ask you to stop doing this. This experience -that I perceive as hostile - is not helping with my impression of the Wikipedia culture, the alleged existence of Wikilove, or my motivation to continue as a contributor - in any capacity - or as a member.


 * StevenBKrivit (talk) 22:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Everybody is an editor on wikipedia: you have just made an edit to this talk page. That's the funny lingo here. You are right that the rules and conventions of this encyclopedia are quite special, which is why I mentioned the point about Bob Park. I'm sorry if I was sloppy about N.E.T. - I just briefly glanced at your website and watched the beginning of one of your videos, which seemed to be promoting LNER. I make no aspersions about what happens outside wiki - I'm an academic and, as I've mentioned elsewhere, the Fleischmanns were family friends when I was very little (a half century ago). Wikipedia is made up of a disparate group of individuals. In my discipline, mathematics, wikipedia editors can range from precocious teenagers to the very top researchers. Mathsci (talk) 01:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I offered by email to give him background on the way fringe interfaces with WP editors and rules (though I'm not sure if the email got through, my server/email program has had some problems). I'm sure you-all likely did as well. One thing he won't want for is people to feed him the different perspectives. Hey, Krivit, you might want to read this, it is interviews that ScienceApologist and I gave (his is below mine). It appears here as I wrote it, rather than the edited version. For "SPOV" you can usually read "debunking." —— Martinphi    Ψ~Φ —— 05:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Were you aware of this? The above link appears to be inappropriate in light of it. Note that the pages that link was copied from were edited in courtesy.  --Noren (talk) 06:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks- seems silly to me, however I changed it to a hardlink above and blanked the whole page except for a link to the hist. —— Martinphi    Ψ~Φ —— 06:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Martinphi, I would like to ask you to remove the link above please. According to the history, Noren did a courtsy blank and then you followed up with a link to the history restoring the RL personal information that has been requested by SA not to be used.  Thanks for your co-operation in this matter. -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  13:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Note re: block of User:Feline1
As a general notification, I've blocked in accordance with my understanding of our policy on "outing". More detail is here. The offending material has already been refactored by another user; I will defer to the directly involved parties as to whether they wish to pursue deletion or oversighting. The block of Feline1 is indefinite, but is not intended to be permanent; it is intended to forestall further violations of the outing policy and I intend to undo it once such an assurance is forthcoming. While the material has already been refactored, given the seriousness with which "outing" has historically been treated by the community and aggravating factors which I mentioned at User Talk:Feline1, I feel that a preventive block should be maintained until a reasonable assurance can be obtained that no further outing will take place. Feedback is welcome, and I explicitly open this block to be undone by any admin at their discretion, without further discussion with me, should they feel it is seriously in error. MastCell Talk 20:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As an update, I've unblocked following an assurance on his talk page that any violation of the policy was unintentional, and that he'll avoid breaching it in the future. MastCell Talk 20:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Blocking here seems like a bit of an overkill. The same information was posted to SA's talk page last week and remains unreverted. The diff is left as an exercise for the reader - I don't want to be similarly accused. ;) Ronnotel (talk) 20:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, had I seen it there, I'd probably have redacted it (someone else just got to it); as to whether I'd have blocked the editor, I guess that depends on the circumstances in which it was posted. Anyhow, I recognize that this was a fairly precipitate administrative action, which is why I posted here and explicitly waived any concern with another admin overturning the block. I appreciate the feedback (seriously - I'm not being sarcastic or faux-polite - I do appreciate the feedback). :) MastCell Talk 21:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No offense taken. I would have redacted myself when I saw it but I know SA prefers some editors (including me) not to edit his page. Ronnotel (talk) 21:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

"is harassment, unless that editor voluntarily posts this information, or links to this information, on Wikipedia themselves." User:xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx was redirected to User:ScienceApologist, by ScienceApologist. Thus, he specifically links himself, and thus there was and is no issue of outing. Personally, I think an apology is in order. I'd post the diff, but personally I don't want to deal with the unfounded yowls. —— Martinphi    Ψ~Φ —— 22:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Users have the right to change their user names to avoid revealing personally idenitifing information. Please review WP:OUTING - "It also applies in the case of editors who have requested a change in username, but whose old signatures can still be found in archives." Hipocrite (talk) 22:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As a note, I have updated WP:OUTING to make it's intent unclear, as this remains unchanged practice (cf User:Backin72). Hipocrite (talk) 22:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Martin, I did apologize here for being heavy-handed, and I appreciate Feline1's equanimity in resolving the situation. That said, the redirect to which you refer was performed in mid-2006, before this user became concerned and began trying to remove reference to his real-life identity from Wikipedia. As a practical matter, it is quite difficult to remember, locate, and remove all references to personal information from Wikipedia, particularly as a non-admin. I don't think that SA's failure to find and scour that particular 2-year-old redirect obviates an obligation to try to respect an editor's current wish for privacy. MastCell Talk 22:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks. But really, the policy needs to be redone to make things clear- In point of fact, Feline did not violate any policy as written (as far as I can see).  And in a case like this, either it's a lost cause, or an admin needs to go through and oversight.  In any case, need to redo the policy to make sure it doesn't get out of hand like this. I mean, see section above, that's just silly.  The thing I hate is that they never honor your wishes and put a note in the unblock edit summary that this shouldn't be held against you in the future.  So now feline has to live with it forever, and that's not fair.  Usually the total length of the log is the factor which really impresses people.  —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 22:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Response to Tznkai's statement
A brief response here to Tznkai's statement: "this evidence page has ended up roughly divided between those attacking Science Apologist for his failures, and those attacking Martinphi and his failures". I've just been reviewing this evidence page, and the impression I have is that more evidence has been presented about ScienceApologist's behaviour than about Martinphi's behaviour. And Martinphi's last 500 edits being mainly on the arbitration cases shouldn't really be taken to mean anything. We don't really want to discourage parties to cases from contributing in those cases. Having said that, I agree with what Tznkai said here. Carcharoth (talk) 19:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)