Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience

Comment by User:Iamthebob, semi-involved (in a sense)
''Note: This is the first time I had ever made a section like this. I hope I have not made a mistake with dividing my comment into sections or having placed any sections in the wrong place.''

Background Information

 * Summary: my interest in this argument and how I got involved in the pseudoscience argument in the first place

My relation to this topic does not originate in the "creation of the universe" debate, but rather a debate I had with User:Tommysun in Talk:Crop circle regarding much of the same issues: pseudoscience, NPOV, undue weight, and so on. On the way, I picked up much of what I will present now through my own research from WP:NPOV, Pseudoscience, the research I did on crop circles, and what Tommy said. Most of the things that I know about the subject of cosmic infaltion, tired light, etc. come from what I read in the past two days; I do not have comprehensive knowledge in this area. The examples given in this section may not be accurate in terms of what actually happened, but are there serve to make a point about pseudoscience and Wikipedia. This was written over a period of hours throughout the entire day in periods of free time.

Pseudoscience is not well defined

 * Summary: the idea of pseudoscience is objective, and is based of what a person believes.

Problem: Look at its talk page and you see what I mean; there is no agreement on what exactly is pseudoscience and what is not, everyone thinks what they are doing is correct. People who are studying what most scientists would consider "pseudoscience" believe the opposite, as do the people who read their works and believe in what they do. Meanwhile, the people who side with mainstream science have difficulty why the pseudoscience is in fact pseudoscience and not just something that they are not willing to believe in because it seems implausible. And that is exactly the case, there is no real definition of pseudoscience. What happens is that when a person studies something carefully and in depth to the point where he/she believes all arguments about it, all contradicting view immediately becomes plain out incorrect and stupid, and as a result pseudoscientific, since science does not do things that are stupid and incorrect.

Policy on WP:NPOV is not specific

 * Summary: there is a lot of ambiguity about what viewpoints are significant and what sources are reliable.

Problem: The controversy over NPOV lies almost exclusively over this single sentence, found in WP:NPOV: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority)." The following problems exist:
 * What viewpoint is "significant?": Everyone thinks their own viewpoint is the most correct, and is significant. But when a person thinks that another person's view is incorrect, he believes it to be insignificant (since it is "obviously wrong"). This prblem leads to the next one.
 * How prominent is each point of view?: We are supposed to "represent all significant viewpoints … in proportion to the prominence of each." How prominent is the Big Bang theory as compared to other theories? What is prominence, anyways? The general population believes in very different things than the scientif community (take the topic of evolution, for example). In addition, each point of view requires description of the point of view; keeping two POVs in a single article either requires excessive explanation of the majority POV—or insufficient explanation of the minority POV. There isn't really a good way of designation of how much of each POV to put any given article.
 * What is a "reliable source?": Exactly what the questions asks, how reliable does something need to get to be reliable? It's obvious that a personal website on Geocities or Tripod is not reliable, but what is reliable? Does it need to be published in a scientific journal? Which scientific journal? Many viewpoints aren't published in scientific journals because they are thought to be pseudoscience. Does that mean they really are pseudoscience? What about websites in general? Is the website of a anti-inflation group a reliable source? What about a site written by a pro-inflation author? For that matter, are major news websites like CNN reliable? And books? If a book is published, does that mean that it is reliable? Books are often highly POV in order to sell well. "Reliable source" is a purely subjective term and should probably be replaced with something more specific.

Extremeists are all the same

 * Summary: the problem with people and Wikipedia is that edit wars will occur whenever opposing sides believe strongly in an issue.

It doesn't matter whether you take someone who takes a point on a majority view, or a point on the minority view, if the person holds strong to their beliefs, no productive work will get done on the Wikipedia article due to edit wars. People are not willing give away article space to the other viewpoint, they are not willing to listen to others, but boldly stide around proposing that their own viewpoint is correct. This is with both sides in this argument, both with people who support the big bang theory, and with those that oppose it, and it is what causes the massive edit wars, which is fueled even further because of the NPOV policy of undue weight. This is a problem with all of Wikipedia, not just this specific instance of it, because when people see that they can edit the encyclopedia that is read by millions of people, they add their own viewpoints to it and improve on it, while people on the other side refuse to let the viewpoint be heard. I have no idea what to do with this problem, though.

Extending the qualifications of pseudo-science
Dieting has been shown to have little long-term benefits, and certain popular diets in particular (Dukan, Paeliolithic) are particularly poor. Could they be classified as pseudo-science, including the page on Dieting giving a positive description of detox dieting? 203.129.51.51 (talk) 06:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * You might be more successful raising this at WP:FTN. Guettarda (talk) 18:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Amendment request: Pseudoscience (January 2018)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Iantresman at 01:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=522442641#Result_concerning_Iantresman


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


 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


 * 


 * Information about amendment request
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=522442641#Result_concerning_Iantresman
 * To have the decision reversed

Statement by Iantresman
Over 5 years ago, I was topic banned under Discretionary Sanctions for discussing a source. I wish to have this decision reversed.
 * 1) In 2006, I last edited and contributed to the article Dusty Plasma (history) Six years later in Nov 2012, I revisited the article, as I noticed that a reference I had used had been removed, on the grounds that was "unreliable", although material added to the article, based on the reference, was left in place, unquestioned. I chose not to revert the reference, but follow standard editing procedures, and discuss the source first (see "Reference restoration" in talk), as all the sources/facts I had, contradicted this view.
 * 2) I feel that my discussion shows that I attempted to "Deal with facts" per WP:TALK, eg. (a) noting the source was from an academic publisher (b) providing numerous references to reviews, (c) at least one quote from the book (d) author credentials (e) Citations to the source.
 * 3) Other editors seemed to base their views on (a) the title of the book, (b) the fact (undisputed) that the editor has unconventional views on cosmology that are not included in the book (a simple quote from the book would counter this view). After I had been topic banned, other editors had the luxury of being able to continue the discussion concerning the reliability of the removed source ("Book 'Physics of the Plasma Universe"') in a style reminiscent of WP:FORUM.
 * 4) Although I was banned under Discretionary Sanctions / Pseudoscience, I feel that the use of "Broadly construed" then and now, was outside of the permitted scope, and no editor could have known that the article was covered by it:
 * The article Dusty Plasma has no connection to pseudoscience, and neither did any of the content I added (it was never questioned, and there is still material based on the source in the article to this day)
 * "Broadly construed" in my case, seems to be quite contrived, and not too dissimilar from "Six degrees of separation":
 * a. My source was edited by Anthony Peratt (who has impeccable credentials)
 * b. Peratt has written unconventional articles on what is known as the Plasma Universe (scientific and peer reviewed)
 * c. The "Plasma Universe" is also applied to, and is sometimes used synonymously with the subject "Plasma Cosmology" (also peer reviewed)
 * d. The article "Plasma Cosmology" was incorrectly tagged with "Category:Fringe subjects without critical scientific evaluation" before being removed.
 * e. "Category:Fringe subjects without critical scientific evaluation" was a sub-category of "Category:Pseudoscience"

The fact is, that I never edited the article against consensus. I don't believe that Wikipedia ever set out to ban editors who discuss sources in good faith, and didn't intend Discretionary Sanctions to be over-extended in this way. --Iantresman (talk) 01:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Notes


 * Littleolive has hit the nail on the head, "damned if you do and damned if you don't". Since I was acused of Wikilawyering in my Discretionary Sanctions (DS) case (disputed by at least one other editor), the last thing I'm going to do is go to ArbCom in case I compound the allegation. The problem with DS and Arbitration processes, are that there is no discussion; I can make a statement, and I have no idea whether it is upheld, ignored, or why it may be rejected. To this day, I do not know what I did wrong considering I felt that I was following editing guidelines to the letter with lots of WP:TALK,  and why other editors appeared to be taken at face value based only on their opinion. --Iantresman (talk) 00:25, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * @Thryduulf Your wrote: "The root cause of (almost) every sanction is that one or more editors are unable to work constructively with the community". Not only do I agree, but I believe that in my discussion I was following WP:TALK especially WP:TALK. I would welcome any advice on how I can be more constructive and collaborative. --Iantresman (talk) 00:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * @Thryduulf Thank you for your advice, particularly on where to find editing help. Presumably if old bans can not be appealed, then by the same logic, they can also never be used against me in the future? --Iantresman (talk) 12:16, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * @Newyorkbrad One appeal that you may not find as it was made directly to Timotheus_Canens, and which I failed was a "Topic ban reconsideration" in March 2017, only 9 months ago. To put it in context:
 * Dec 2016: "Nomination of Pensée for deletion" I was asked if I wanted to contribute to the AfD, but declined(diff) because of my topic ban. Following discussion and taking advice, it was suggested that it could be a "test case" for me(diff). I took part, being the only person to provide references. I also checked with Timotheus Canens, which was positive.
 * Dec 2016: "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kronos" Although another grey area, I took part in another AfD a few weeks later, again being the only person to provide references. I did not ask, as I felt that my previous participation was deemed OK.
 * Feb 2017. "Fringe sources identify someone as a scientist" Based on my previous participations, and my consideration that this was another grey area, and that I was not discussing either pseudoscience nor plasma physics, I took part (without asking). Timotheus Canens disagreed with my presumptions.
 * So technically I've been out of trouble for only nine months, though my paricipation was I believe respectful and constructive. --Iantresman (talk) 11:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I am currently "banned from all articles, discussions and other content related to plasma physics and astrophysics". I would obviously like to edit articles in these subject areas. I don't believe I will have any issue in following Wikipedia policies, though I did not believe I had any issues which resulted in my ban, as did at least two other editors (so I'm not trying to be defiant or bloody minded).
 * I would also like to point out that just because I am interested in certain topics, does not mean that I have a belief that those topics are correct (science and Wikipedia does not accept beliefs as evidence). And my interests were certainly not a problem when I earned my university certificates in astronomy, cosmology and radio astronomy from the University of Central Lancashire and Jodrell Bank in 2010 (certificates available to cynics on request). --Iantresman (talk) 16:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * (1) I believe that disclosing any off-Wiki associations I may have, contravenes Wikipedia's policies on privacy, and I would ask you to remove them (2) Using any off-Wiki associations I may have, could be considered an ad hominem suggesting "discrediting my views", and contravene policies on "No personal attacks", and I would ask that you remove them. Suggesting that peoples' off-Wiki associations should be taken into account because of various religious and political proclivities, might make us illogically consider otherwise satisfactory editing. The rest of your post I am quite happy with. --Iantresman (talk) 17:59, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Timotheus Canens
This appears to be an attempt to relitigate the merits of a 5-year-old AE action instead of anything resembling a request to lift the sanction as no longer necessary. As I do not believe the committee should be entertaining requests of the former category five years after the fact, I do not intend to respond substantively unless requested by the committee. T. Canens (talk) 02:15, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Statement by (uninvolved) MjolnirPants
As a disinterested outsider with no familiarity with the events descriped by the OP, I can say that the OP makes a compelling case for having been wrongly sanctioned. Assuming -in my usual cynical way- that the initial discussion with OP was hair-pullingly frustrating for those who disagree with them, I still can't see that as requiring anything more than a 6 month topic ban at worst.

While the committee may not be interested in relitigating old disputes (which is some bullshit, all in itself; it's essentially saying that ArbCom doesn't make mistakes), I wonder if the committee is possessed of that typical human ability to read between the lines: The OP is requesting that a 5-year-old sanction which they have abided in good faith, despite believing that it was wrongly and unfairly imposed should be lifted because the OP has given 5 years worth of evidence that they are perfectly capable of controlling themselves in this subject area. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants  Tell me all about it.  13:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * My point isn't that you guys should consider whether this was fair or not, but that you should consider whether it is necessary, given that Iantresman a) Obviously still considers it unfair and yet b) lived with it anyways. As far as I know, they haven't violated it at all. That's a pretty
 * I also don't think it's very reasonable to conclude that a failure to appeal is necessarily an acceptance of the merit of the sanction. It could well be that the OP felt that it would be futile to appeal (which, if it was wrongfully imposed, would very likely be true, as the imposing body would be the same body hearing the appeal). Or it could be that the OP simply felt that the sanction wasn't worth appealing, as they don't or didn't intend to edit in that area in any case. Or maybe the OP was afraid appealing it would be seen as disruptive and result in further sanctions (not a particularly reasonable belief, but then, not a particularly uncommon one, either). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  22:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * There's no point in acting all surprised about it. All the planning charts and demolition orders have been on display in your local planning department in Alpha Centauri for fifty of your Earth years, so you've had plenty of time to lodge any formal complaints and it's far too late to start making a fuss about it now. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  05:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Darkfrog24
I have to agree with MjolnirPants. If it is valid to say that a sanction is no longer necessary then it is also valid to say that it was never necessary. All our AE admins are volunteers and human beings, and it is possible for them to make mistakes. Even if the principal issue is whether the sanction is necessary now, regardless of whether it ever was, then "I didn't do X in the first place" is a point in the claimant's favor. It means he can be trusted not to start. It certainly shouldn't be held against him. If lantresman was willing to submit to the admins' authority and obey a punishment that he believes he did not deserve (even if he believes wrongly), that is also a point showing that he can work in a collaborative project. We all have to bite our tongues sometime. If pleading innocent is enough to get a request automatically thrown out, I have to wonder what editors who were or believe themselves to be wrongly sanctioned are supposed to do. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * As Thryduulf points out, topic bans, whether they are deserved or not, are held against the sanctioned editor forever. They're like a brand that says "filth." There should be some avenue toward having it removed.  Surely no one here thinks that the admins are never wrong or that sanctioned editors have to apologize for actions that they did not perform.  Even the best legal systems in the world make mistakes sometimes, and we're all amateurs here.
 * Also, there doesn't seem to be anything in WP:APPEAL or WP:TBAN that says there's a time limit. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:38, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Another concern. The upshot of this thread seems to be "If you do not appeal your sanctions right away and in as loud a voice as possible, we will interpret that as a confession/guilty plea and you will permanently lose your right to argue otherwise." Think about that.  Won't that just encourage people to appeal their sanctions at the earliest possible opportunity?  People who would otherwise wait or give everyone time to cool down now have to move immediately. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:48, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment by olive
Is there a time limit for asking that a sanction be reversed? Most often I've seen requests refused because enough time had not passed. This is confusing for editors. I agree with Darkfrog and Mpants. This is a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation. What is there in this editor's history that says he is not worthy of a revisit to his sanction? Above all what is missing in most AEs is that admins and arbs do not ask questions of the editor applying. If you don't understand, ask him, communicate with him; don't assume you understand. The concern here is that an editor has no recourse. We should be trying to hold on to editors, helping them edit, to be productive.(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC))


 * Thryduulf

Comment made before Thryduulf's cmt to Olive below... and thank you for your response. I understand the distinction but does every editor who appeals understand these kinds of distinctions before thy appeal. Do you see what I am saying?

While your explanations are sensible, logical and beautifully worded, they are the understanding of the admins and arbs not the editor who appeals. That an editor chooses "not to appeal on the merits of the original sanction for such a prolonged period of time is acceptance of the merits" assumes that the editor knows how to word or create an appeal that is within the realm of how the admins/arbs believe and expect a case should be presented and worded. My own experience is that editors do not always know how to word an appeal, do not have that view into the perspective of those they are dealing with. This is especially true for editors with less experience. We are throwing out cases because they are not presented in a way that is acceptable rather than that they are with out merit seems to me. That's why its imperative to ask an editor what they are saying or asking for. Right now its a guessing game as to how to present a case as to what to say or how to present information. Admins and arbs are seeing this from one view editors from another. With experience sure, editors can become good at presenting their cases, but the less experienced in the ways of AEs are severely handicapped. While Wikipedia was not originally designed to be punitive we are punishing editors for lacking knowledge and experience in presenting their cases. (Littleolive oil (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC))


 * I have seen that a wrongly designed appeal is a lost appeal, sadly. This is no one's fault in my mind just the way appeals have become.(Littleolive oil (talk) 00:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC))

Statement by Thryduulf (re Pseudoscience)
The root cause of (almost) every sanction is that one or more editors are unable to work constructively with the community or a subset of it (which can be as small as one other editor), either generally or in relation to a specific topic area. Sanctions should be, and mostly are, preventative not punitive - that is intended to allow editors to be productive and constructive in ways/areas where they can be while protecting the project by preventing them disrupting other areas. People can change, people can mature and (relevant in some cases) real-world situations can change so that the restrictions are no needed. Indeed in an ideal world every sanction would at some point no longer be necessary. For this reason appeals should always be focused on explaining/demonstrating why sanctions are no longer needed now. Whether they were needed at some point in the past has increasingly little relevance the longer ago that point was. I also strongly agree with BU Rob13 when they say "Choosing not to appeal on the merits of the original sanction for such a prolonged period of time is acceptance of the merits".

As for the specific sanctions here, I think that in December 2017 is completely irrelevant at this point whether they were required when imposed in November 2012, but that if they weren't required then they should have been appealed when they were still relevant. It's probably also worth noting that real world events seem to have changed, in that in 2012 Plasma cosmology was described as a fringe theory that had not been critically evaluated (or at least had not had a significant amount of critical evaluation). In the intervening five years though it seems that it has been evaluated and rejected - which could have a significant impact on how the need for sanctions would be evaluated. Thryduulf (talk) 23:18, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

There is a distinction being made here between appealing a restriction on the grounds that it wasn't required when imposed, and appealing a restriction on the grounds that it isn't required now. The first sort of appeal should be made relatively soon after the restriction was imposed (how long exactly will vary based on different circumstances, but certainly beyond a year I'd be looking for some accompanying explanation about why the appeal wasn't made originally and why it is still relevant - an absence from the project for unavoidable real-world reasons would be one possible example.). The second sort of appeal should, in contrast, not be made too quickly because to be successful the person appealing will need to show that one or more things have changed and that just isn't possible immediately. Again different circumstances will dictate different lengths of time but in most cases less than 3-6 months is going to require evidence that something significant in the real world has changed - an example being the various restrictions imposed in the run up to the 2016 US presidential election were set to expire when the losing candidate conceded defeat, even though this was only expected to be a few weeks away (maybe less), as many of the problems were related to speculation about the outcome and/or its consequences. Thryduulf (talk) 23:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * When someone appeals using the wrong sort of appeal the responses will indicate this - a very good example is the arbitrator's comments below. They don't have to know in advance, they just need to read the responses they get. We also have Guide to appealing blocks and we should have a similar one for appealing other sanctions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The editor has a choice of whether to listen to the advice they are given or not. If they choose not to listen then yes the appeal is lost. If they do listen then there are three ways it can go - (1) the appeal can be rejected, almost certainly without prejudice to a new appeal based on what the admins say they are looking for (although this will only work once or twice per editor per period of time); (2) the appeal can be withdrawn and new appeal made based on what the admins say they are looking for; (3) the appeal can be modified to include the information the admins say they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 01:12, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I have no interest at this point in reviewing five-year-old discussions to re-litigate a five-year-old topic ban, and the arbs below have indicated the same thing. If you want your appeal to be successful you need to demonstrate that your current behaviour and interactions mean that the topic ban is no longer required - whether it ever was is not relevant. I suggest that at this point it's probably best to withdraw this appeal, take a bit of time (a few days at least, probably at least a week is better. Certainly wait until after this appeal is archived) to work on a new appeal in your userspace that relates to your current behaviour - there are editors who will help you with this if you ask (although I can't remember where to find them off the top of my head, asking at the Help desk will lead you to them if you can't find them directly). If you want to get advice on your editing style, then or now, then this is not the right forum in which to get it (Teahouse or using the template on your talk page are). One thing though that will definitely count against an appeal is not listening to advice given to you. Thryduulf (talk) 01:12, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * re old bans, this is not a simple yes/no question. It is and will remain factual that you were topic banned and that you chose not to appeal it at the time (regardless of why), any sanctions you received for breaching it (I haven't looked to see if there are any) will also remain in your history. However, it should only be brought up where relevant and it will be ignored if it is brought up where it is not relevant (and bringing it up where it is clearly not relevant may reflect badly on the person bringing it up). Equally it will only impact anything in future to the degree that it is relevant to the particular situation at hand, and the longer ago the ban and, especially the longer ago any sanctions for breaching it, the less likely it is to be relevant and (generally speaking) the less significant any relevance will be. If you are (accused of being) disruptive in the future regarding Plasma cosmology or something closely related then your previous topic ban will likely be relevant, if you do/are accused of doing something completely different (say, introducing copyvios into Cephalotes eduarduli (example article selected by special:random) then it is going to be pretty much irrelevant. If you aren't disruptive at all going forwards then almost nobody is going to care about the five year old disruption and it wont trouble you at all. It is not possible to speak in absolutes though as Wikipedia is not a court and there are no firm rules. Thryduulf (talk) 13:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

"If you do not appeal your sanctions right away and in as loud a voice as possible, we will interpret that as a confession/guilty plea and you will permanently lose your right to argue otherwise." That's not what I'm saying, and not what I interpret the arbs or anyone else (other than you) saying. The point is that you always need to appeal on the basis of why a remedy is not needed now. In practical terms this means that if you appeal in the first period then you need to show why the sanction was not necessary in the first place, and if you appeal in the second period then you need to show what has changed to mean it is no longer necessary (whether or not it ever was). The first period generally runs from immediately after the sanction was imposed through to around 2-6 months later, and the second period generally from around 6 weeks after it was placed and doesn't end (unless the restrictions expire or are lifted), although there are plenty of circumstances that can extend either period forwards or backwards. Thryduulf (talk) 15:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC) A couple of quick points. I'm not saying that if you don't appeal the merits of your sanction in the first period after it is imposed that this is a concession that it was valid, just that for the purposes of a later appeal it is rarely relevant whether it was or was not valid or required at the time (and so it's easier for everybody to just treat it as if it was) - i.e. explain why the sanction isn't required now, whether it ever was or not. Regarding timescales, as I said there are many factors that can move either period in either direction, and yes some can be quite significant in terms of time, but if you are making an appeal significantly outside the usual timeframe then I expect the person appealing to acknowledge this and note what the factors are that mean an appeal to the initial validity is still relevant after a long time or why something has changed so much sooner than would normally be expected (and obviously people may disagree about what is and isn't relevant). In terms of this appeal, I'm not seeing anything that convinces me that it is worth considering whether the sanction was valid 5 years ago, nor initially was there anything presented on which to judge an appeal regarding whether it is required now. Thryduulf (talk) 15:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Begoon
Holy exploding wikilawyering, Batman! Per MPants and Euryalus - just lift the sanction and move on... -- Begoon 12:25, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Bishonen
Too many ifs and buts. Lift the ban already. Bishonen &#124; talk 16:39, 1 January 2018 (UTC).

Statement by John Cline

 * I am familiar with the precursors necessitating this request. I'd like, therefor, to squash the misnomers that Iantresman exercised a level of diligence less than what ought reasonably be due when he put this request forward, that he misspoke his request therein, or that he missed some threshold for timeliness that does not seem to exist.
 * Iantresman is not one to initiate discussion without giving consideration to all relevant matters before, including, in this case, the guide to appealing blocks and other such guides. He is meticulous and compulsively thorough, never slothful or indiscriminate. As such, when he opened this discussion seeking an amendment of discretionary sanctions, saying: "I wish to have this decision reversed.", he could not have been more clear or concise, nor, IMHO, more apt or astute.
 * I disagree with its having been re-framed as a request to modify the pseudoscience case by simply vacating the sanctions placed against Iantresman, therein.
 * I specifically contend the following points:
 * It is no small distinction that Iantresman is not sanctioned for failing to adhere the restrictions imposed by the pseudoscience remedy bearing his name but instead by acts sacrosanct when accorded with WP:AC/DS; this should not have been marginalized by bureaucratic muddling.
 * If ever there could be a sanction worthy of being, a fair mind would be well taxed in trying to find one more worthy than what this placement seems to merit.
 * That one could rightly assume Iantresman had accepted and agreed with his sanction is inarguable if his subsequent action, after abiding the sanction, had been to request its removal, as no longer needed (as members have advised).
 * Iantresman should not, instead, be held to timeliness criteria that did not exist when his request was published (seeing the precedent for such mindset born in this discussion).
 * Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 08:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement by (uninvolved) SMcCandlish
I think the appellant's request for the topic ban to be lifted should be granted, since it's unlikely this serves any preventative purpose at all. It's also fairly unlikely it ever did, though that may not be relevant to the decision.

I think what's happening here is some parties are bureaucratically treating this like a courtroom, and wikilawyering ("ha ha, he said 'have this decision reversed', and I can willfully choose to interpret that as 'have the record expunged' instead of 'have the effect of the decision terminated', and hot damn I'm clever'). It's patently obvious what the intent of the request is. Whether someone agrees with how the person feels about the nature and rationale of the original sanction when it was issued, and wants to litigate about whether someone should be able to appeal a sanction after X amount of time, it doesn't change the obvious underlying nature of the request.

That said, I would like to address the wonkishundefined procedural stuff: — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  14:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC); revised: 00:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  00:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) I have to agree entirely with  on almost every point.
 * 2) My one quibble is with Thryduulf's and originally 's idea that failure to appeal a sanction in a timely manner equals concession that it was valid. That's just plain counterfactual, and we all know it, even if as a practical matter we might have to treat it  that's the case, to stop people re-litigating stuff from 2004 when everyone who might contradict them is long gone.  In reality though, any of these and more might result in a year+ delay:
 * 3) * Many editors simply become dispirited, even despondent, and leave for a while when faced with this sort of thing. No one likes feeling rejected by their intentional community, and some take it harder than others.
 * 4) * Others don't know the appeal process and find the prospect daunting and frustrating.
 * 5) ** As I've learned from experience, it can be very inconsistently applied: I was directed and redirected in a farcical AN/ARCA/AE/ARCA×2 run-around and actually did not get the issue resolved until a neutral third party filed a second ARCA on behalf of me and the other affected parties, which met with further wikilawyering about whether such an ARCA was permissible. That kind of b.s. should never, ever happen again.
 * 6) * Others are simply temperamentally unsuited to deal with such a thing until after a considerable amount of time has passed. They vary:
 * 7) ** They may be insecure and severely averse to conflict if it might affect them personally.
 * 8) ** They may be prone to outage, and too apoplectic to really put together a coherent appeal for a long time. (And probably others between these extremes).
 * 9) *Some have high blood pressure, ulcers, viral conditions, or other problems that make them choose to avoid stress and conflict because of their physiological effects, until they no longer feel a strong reaction to the issue.
 * 10) *Plenty are just terrified of admins and ArbCom, and don't lose that fear until after a lot of observation about how an appeal can succeed.
 * 11) *Some also just have lives. They may have demanding careers, kids to raise, and so on. If a pleasurable hobby starts to feel like a crappy job with crappy co-workers, their interest in dealing with said crap is apt to be very low. It may take them a long time to remember that they actually enjoyed part of their time here, and to miss it, and to decide to make room for it again in their lives.
 * 12) *A few are kids. A whole lot of maturing and understanding can happen in a short time when you're smart and entering your teen years. This may include figuring out how to use a "political" process instead of posting a GFYs rant.
 * 13) Thus, any kind of hard deadline for appeals of the actual validity of sanctions should be around the 18 month mark, if not longer (yes this means most non-indef sanctions would be appealable not just amendable for their entire duration). I took an almost-total wikibreak for a year myself, and it easily could have been longer.  Furthermore, ArbCom and AE and ANI have no trouble at all dredging up stuff way older than that when they want to bring the banhammer down on someone.  So, No double-standards, please.  Especially since it's actually a triple standard: If you're not one of the AE in-crowd and attempt to use evidence more than about a year old, you may find yourself boomeranged for it, as I did, while those doing the boomeranging will themselves use even older evidence against you.  If that sounds too hypocritical to be real, I assure you it is not.  I've also seen an Arb, who was supposed to be, turn prosecutor and go digging up extraneous dirt almost a year old looking for reasons to oppose an appeal, rather than weighing the evidence presented.  Was several years ago, but it happened and nothing was done about it, so it could happen again.  Give appellants a  of procedural slack.  We want to retain editors and get them editing as broadly as they're competent to contribute. ArbCom's goal is not to WP:WIN at being a prosecution simulator.
 * 14) As for someone else's "If it is valid to say that a sanction is no longer necessary then it is also valid to say that it was never necessary" – A) Interpreted with the more obvious meaning, sure.  People shouldn't be castigated for  it – for objecting to the original sanction as (in their view) bogus – as long as they eventually get around to why the sanction's not needed now. (They should be aware that doing so may be detrimental to their amendment request, though, which is something some appellants don't absorb.)  B) Interpreted the other way, i.e. that a sanction not necessary now was never necessary, categorically speaking ... it just couldn't possibly be true.  It would presuppose that people do not learn and grow, that sanctions cannot have a preventative and instructive effect.  In the majority of successful requests to end or reduce/narrow sanctions, the sanctions were clearly needed when issued – or at least among the solutions available and reasonable, when some solution from among them was needed – and later became not-needed-any-longer. Normally I would automatically assume the first of these two meanings. But said commenter's "topic bans ... [are] like a brand that says 'filth.' There should be some avenue toward having it removed. Surely no one here thinks that ... sanctioned editors have to apologize for actions that they did not perform" leans toward the second.
 * I see lots in this that speaks to the now and why the T-ban should be lifted and that this is the desire; it's just not the bulk of the material. Examples: "it was suggested that it could be a 'test case' for me. I took part, being the only person to provide references."; "I took part in another [grey-area] AfD a few weeks later, again being the only person to provide references."; "I would obviously like to edit articles in these subject areas. I don't believe I will have any issue in following Wikipedia policies"; and "just because I am interested in certain topics, does not mean that I have a belief that those topics are correct", and so on. We need to be mindful that it can be difficult for us mere hominids to entirely let go of a feeling of being wronged while trying to get out from under the cloud of it (and judging from Iantresman's later posts, this doesn't look like an editor incapable of separating these things, nor one who is just "biding" and trying to snow us before returning to singleminded disruptive WP:TRUTH activity). Only a few months ago there was another ARCA here in which it was questioned whether the sanction had ever really been needed, and there was way less resistance to just lifting it. I think this has turned semi-sour only because of the imprecise "have this decision reversed" opening wording, later restated more clearly as "would ... like to edit articles in these subject areas". ArbCom doesn't have its hands tied, and does not have to respond to this request by literally vacating the original sanction; it can simply lift it as not likely to be preventative of actual disruption. For those who love to play moot court, it's a normal legal process to parole people from prison, without getting into whether the original prosecution was valid (absent a showing of prosecutorial misconduct or the like).

Statement by EdJohnston (re Pseudoscience)
Ian Tresman was an original named party of the 2006 case, WP:ARBPS. He is a supporter of plasma universe ideas, generally considered on WP to be pseudoscience. (Arbcom, in its 2006 WP:ARBPS decision, made a finding of fact which linked to Ian Tresman's personal website). In a 15 July 2007 posting at WP:COIN, Ian stated "I have not used a pseudonym. My interests are readily found..."). Ian is not here arguing that his topic ban from plasma physics is no longer necessary, he is arguing that an AE decision about him from 2012 was wrongly decided. Those diffs are all available for review, so nothing prevents Arbcom from looking into this if they want to. The only problem is that some memories may have faded, but there should still be enough to go on. (The AE complaint was about inappropriate insistence on Ian's part about including a book, claimed to be tainted by fringe thinking, into the reference list of our article on Dusty plasma, which is a mainstream non-fringe topic in astronomy).

When Arbcom reviews AE decisions they often use the standard of 'within discretion', and from the limited data presented in this appeal, nothing jumps out to me as *not* within discretion. (Of course, I might say that because I did participate in the 2012 AE decision, though only to say that the user was adequately warned about discretionary sanctions). The question of whether Ian's topic ban is still necessary is a different question for which different data might need to be looked at, none of which is presented here. When admins are reviewing topic bans it is a common to say that 'indef topic bans can't be waited out'. In other words, there needs to be a record of positive editing (or an indication of a change of heart) to show that the previous problems won't recur. None of that data is included here, and I'd recommend that Arbcom decline this appeal. User:Callanecc has made other proposals below (Jan. 2) for what Ian might do next, including asking for AE review. EdJohnston (talk) 04:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I replaced part of my above statement that might have implied that Ian Tresman's views are already known on the internet. based on a criticism by User:Iantresman. I found that Arbcom had already linked to Ian's personal website in a 2006 finding of fact. Though I don't link to it here, I quote Arbcom's mention of it above. EdJohnston (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Pseudoscience: Clerk notes

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


 * Changed name of case to Pseudoscience because that is the case under which discretionary sanctions were imposed. For the Committee, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 01:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Pseudoscience: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I'm also not that interested in reviewing the merits of a 5-year old discretionary sanction, the time for that was more than 4 years ago. Very briefly though, Tim's justification that the article was within the area authorised for discretionary sanctions was reasonable at the time. The fact that it isn't (or likely wouldn't) be considered a fringe theory now is irrelevant to whether the sanction was (and hence is) valid. As this appeal does not request that the sanction be removed for any other reason, and that this appeal is about re-litigating the 5-year old decision, I am declining the appeal at this time without prejudice an appeal being filed at AE (or here) arguing that the sanction is no longer needed (not on its original merits since the committee will already have opined on that). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Edited, I meant what OR said after "except". Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to reinforce/clarify that I'm not declining your appeal completely. What I'm saying is that, given it's been 5 years since the sanction was originally imposed, it's too late to claim that that the sanction either wasn't originally permissible (given the topic) or warranted (due to your editing) at this point in time. As Thryduulf points out, what you should do instead,, is appeal on the premise that the sanction is no longer needed and that, in 2017/2018 it is no longer necessary to prevent disruption. You can make that appeal directly to Timotheus Canens or to AN or AE, or even back to ARCA if you wish (though I'd suggest AN or AE first, before coming back here). An appeal that the sanction is no longer necessary should use examples from your more recent editing (6-12 months) to show that you are not being disruptive and that you are acting inside community expectations. The evidence (from the last 3-12 months) you include could be, for example, that you haven't been recently blocked or given a different sanction (warning or ban) but instead that you have engaged in calm discussion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If we were to hear Iantresman's appeal on the assumption that they meant that the topic ban isn't needed now then there a couple concerns I still have. The first is that my general approach to AE appeals at ARCA is that I tend to consider whether the sanction was a reasonable exercise of admin discretion rather than whether the sanction is needed except where there extenuating circumstances. Given previous points made that it was 5 years ago, the answer to that question is yes, therefore I'd decline the appeal. However, even if, given the age of the sanction, I were to disregard that and consider removing it (that is, consider age as an extenuating circumstance), the appeal from Iantresman does not address whether or not the sanction is needed now but rather only addresses the original merits of the sanction so I'd decline it for that reason. My advice to would be the same as above, it would benefit you to, instead of continuing this appeal and adding new stuff to it which will become convoluted, file a new appeal which addresses whether the sanction is needed now. I'd suggest that an appeal addressing whether the sanction is needed now would be best at AN or AE (or even to T. Canens on his talk page) rather than jumping to the highest level of appeal (that is, here) as a first step. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * It's never a good sign when an ARCA begins with "Over 5 years ago..." and then goes on with "In 2006..." ;) I was about to say what Callanecc said but he beat me to it. (Except that I think it would technically be OK to appeal here or at AE with an argument that the sanctions are unnecessary/out of date/whatever, as opposed to the current formulation that largely parallels the argument made in the original AE in 2012.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If the remedy was never needed to begin with, it should be easy to show that it's not needed on an ongoing basis, either here or at AE if you prefer. See the other appeal here for an example - useful input includes e.g. links to discussions in which you worked well with other editors or edited well about other topics. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:59, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * But, but, I have a copy of the Bikeshed Construction and Maintenance Safety Guide right here, and in chapter 4, section 3, subsection 6, paragraph 2, it says plain as day that notices must be posted at least two weeks in advance of any proposed color change and the notice must be in the color proposed for the bikeshed and it must specify whether objections to the proposed color should be posted at AE or ARCA or both ;) Fine, fine, I'm encouraged by the fact that several commenters I wouldn't call soft on fringe views are in support of this; let's just do it now. One thing, though -, can you link the past appeal you think we need to see first? Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The links are in a couple of different places, and tracing them has been a bit of a trip down memory lane; I'll try to pull them together here tomorrow. Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree with all of the above. ~ Rob 13 Talk 17:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If a sanctioned editor believes they are wrongly sanctioned, they should appeal in a timely fashion. I would interpret what is "timely" quite generously - probably within a year or so of the sanction or within a reasonable time after returning, if they took a break from the project after being sanctioned. Choosing not to appeal on the merits of the original sanction for such a prolonged period of time is acceptance of the merits, in my opinion. Administrators cannot reasonably be expected to defend the merits of a sanction they placed five years ago, which they've likely long-since forgotten about. If this same appeal had been made 4.5 years ago, the Committee would have seriously considered it as we do the vast majority of appeals on the merits of the original sanction. ~ Rob 13 Talk 22:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I still see nothing in the appeal that speaks to likelihood of being an issue in the topic area today, so I still would decline this. I'd encourage Iantresman to file an appeal at AN or AE detailing how they will not be an issue in the topic area going forward. As a side note, the appeal to the enforcing admin was declined for a recent violation of the topic ban, but I am not inclined to hold that against Iantresman. He received the dubious advice from multiple admins to edit in "gray areas" as a test case. That is equivalent to telling him to probe the boundaries of his topic ban, which is something that should be heavily avoided. We shouldn't hold it against him when he pushes slightly too far. ~ Rob 13 Talk 19:22, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * As do I. Doug Weller  talk 19:16, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Per Callanecc and OR. Katietalk 15:59, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Per Callanecc also, no prejudice toward filing a new appeal following the advice given. Alex Shih (talk) 02:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Happy to believe this elderly sanction can be removed. Suggest you post a request at AE indicating that whether or not the sanction had validity back then, it no longer does. I'd also be happy for us to do this right here, absent any fervent objection. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Putting the above a bit more bluntly: support lifting the sanction, essentially per : whatever the original merits, let's not make Iantresman jump through more hoops. Instead, let's just lift it and move along. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)


 * In general I agree with Thryduulf's comments above. I also have a recollection of a prior appeal by Iantresman, which should be referenced in any future appeal. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Upon further research, the earlier appeal I was thinking of was from 2012, so is a bit more ancient history and therefore a bit less relevant than I had thought. Given the age, rather than get into the specifics from back then, I'll ask Iantresman in any future appeal to address the direct questions of what topics he would like to edit that he now cannot, and whether he is confident that he'll be able to edit them consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. My recollection is that you (Iantresman) hold views on some cosmology related subject that are or were not in step with commonly accepted understandings of the universe. That of course is your prerogative, but you know that we have policies as to how majority and minority theories are to be presented. Do you believe you will have any issue in following those policies, if you resume editing in these areas? Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Clarification request: Pseudoscience (September 2020)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by RexxS at 21:47, 19 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected

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

Statement by RexxS
I apologise for making what appears to be a content-related request, but the behaviour of editors at Ayurveda and Talk:Ayurveda needs to be restrained, and a simple confirmation should be all that's needed to clarify the underlying issues.

Following a contentious edit war at Ayurveda and a WP:AE discussion, created an RfC at resolve the question of whether the phrase "pseudoscience" should be in the lead. The debate involved over 60 editors, was closed as no-consensus, reviewed, and re-opened for closure by an admin.

Many proponents of Ayurveda have taken the opportunity in that debate to argue that Ayurveda is not pseudoscientific and are attempting to have the phrase removed entirely. I believe that the position on Wikipedia is that Ayurveda is a pseudoscience as a matter of fact. I am therefore seeking a clear confirmation from ArbCom that the article is subject to discretionary sanctions as a pseudoscience (as even that fact has been contested). Having a clear statement of the position will enable a closer to accurately weigh the strengths of the arguments and to reject entirely arguments that clearly contradict Wikipedia policy on pseudoscience.

In the decision at WP:ARBPS, ArbCom asserted the principle I would like a clarification that the principle includes Ayurveda in the same way as astrology, and consequently that Ayurveda can be considered in the same light.

Thank you in advance for your assistance in this matter. --RexxS (talk) 21:47, 19 August 2020 (UTC)


 * It is a truism that as far a WiIkipedia is concerned, Ayurveda is either a pseudoscience or it is not. If it is, then editors who breach WP:AC/DS requirements for behaviour can be sanctioned as an AE action. If it is not, then they cannot. You have earlier disputed that ArbCom has designated Ayurveda as a pseudoscience in Wikipedia's view, but that leads to an unsustainable situation. If your logic holds, any other editor can use your ipse dixit argument to claim that they cannot be sanctioned – simply by stating that Ayurveda is not a pseudoscience on the grounds that ArbCom has not explicitly said so. Any admin can take AE action against any editor breaching the expected standards of behaviour at Astrology; however the consequence, if your reasoning is accepted, is that anyone editing articles such as Ayurveda has a get-out-of-jail-free card by the simple expedient of denying that the topic is a pseudoscience.
 * We already have prior debate: RfC July 2015 and Talk:Ayurveda/Archive 13 concluding that Ayurveda is a pseudoscience, but that is insufficient, it appears, as editors are free to deny the fact as if it were not so.
 * Who then should be the authority that decides that question? At the very least, ArbCom needs to clarify that position. --RexxS (talk) 22:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that ArbCom would be comfortable in addressing the second part of my request for clarification, although you were happy enough to do exactly that for Astrology, which is completely analogous to Ayurveda. The first part is naturally more important, particularly as we are currently under attack at the Talk:Ayurveda page from a concerted campaign, organised through Twitter to distort the consensus away from the recognised scientific viewpoint. An admin has felt it necessary to take the extraordinary step of semi-protecting the talk page temporarily, and I've been playing Whack-a-mole with about 30 newly registered meat/sock-puppets who have repeated the same disruptive edit requests. We need a lot more eyes on the disruption to that page, and it's possible that it is going to require another ArbCom case if the DS prove insufficient. Having a clear statement that Ayurveda is pseudoscience in the same way that Astrology is would go a long way to settling down the disruption there and establishing that Wikipedia's content cannot be held hostage by special interest groups. --RexxS (talk) 17:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * we already have had two RfCs confirming that the community regards Ayurveda as pseudoscience, as well as a catalogue of reliable sources stating the same. See Talk:Ayurveda/Archive 12  and Talk:Ayurveda/Archive 13 . This does not stop the talk page being flooded with SPAs to distort consensus and oppose the appellation. The serious discussions have been made and the consensus is long-standing, but that doesn't stop the disruption.
 * see Sockpuppet investigations/Anuram567. Your idea and mine of "a very small number of editors" differ quite dramatically. --RexxS (talk) 17:35, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * there is a community consensus that the topic is pseudoscience, but that hasn't stopped the disruption. What is needed is some backbone from ArbCom to make sure that there is not a shadow of doubt about the position of Ayurveda. I'm up to my armpits in alligators over at that article and its talk page and you and a few more admins need to get their backsides over there by the time that the semi-protection wears off the talk page (!) and the disruption starts up again. I'm sick of boatloads of editors with no more than half-a-dozen edits turning up and arguing black is white time and again. --RexxS (talk) 21:30, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The Ayurveda article has indeed recently been EC-protected. However, we're in the process of trying to decide issues by discussion on the talk page, but the recent disruption to the talk page has resulted in the talk page being semi-protected for two days. It is not a tenable situation to have talk pages protected, and I don't think you appreciate the degree of disruption we're having to deal with.
 * there is a community consensus that the topic is pseudoscience, but that hasn't stopped the disruption. What is needed is some backbone from ArbCom to make sure that there is not a shadow of doubt about the position of Ayurveda. I'm up to my armpits in alligators over at that article and its talk page and you and a few more admins need to get their backsides over there by the time that the semi-protection wears off the talk page (!) and the disruption starts up again. I'm sick of boatloads of editors with no more than half-a-dozen edits turning up and arguing black is white time and again. --RexxS (talk) 21:30, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The Ayurveda article has indeed recently been EC-protected. However, we're in the process of trying to decide issues by discussion on the talk page, but the recent disruption to the talk page has resulted in the talk page being semi-protected for two days. It is not a tenable situation to have talk pages protected, and I don't think you appreciate the degree of disruption we're having to deal with.
 * The Ayurveda article has indeed recently been EC-protected. However, we're in the process of trying to decide issues by discussion on the talk page, but the recent disruption to the talk page has resulted in the talk page being semi-protected for two days. It is not a tenable situation to have talk pages protected, and I don't think you appreciate the degree of disruption we're having to deal with.
 * The Ayurveda article has indeed recently been EC-protected. However, we're in the process of trying to decide issues by discussion on the talk page, but the recent disruption to the talk page has resulted in the talk page being semi-protected for two days. It is not a tenable situation to have talk pages protected, and I don't think you appreciate the degree of disruption we're having to deal with.

If the 2020 committee feels unable to affirm that Ayurveda is included in the principle "Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience." that the 2006 committee passed 8-0, then so be it: I won't take up any more of your time. --RexxS (talk) 17:16, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

The actions of in starting yet another RfC at Talk:Ayurveda on an issue that was settled two weeks ago are a shining example of the sort of disruption that is being caused in this area following Opindia's campaign to distort Wikipedia's decision-making processes. Regular editors are becoming weary of the time-sink involved in dealing with questions that have been repeatedly asked and answered. As I've been assured that discretionary sanctions are sufficient to deal with the problem, I'll give advance notice that I intend to sanction Petrarchan47 as an AE action if that disruptive RfC is not withdrawn within 24 hours. Let's see whether ds really does do its job. --RexxS (talk) 18:39, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * you can be as sad as you want to be, but the regular editors at Ayurveda are sick of disruption of the sort that you and Opindia are causing. There is no reason whatsoever to attempt to relitigate the "is Ayurveda a pseudoscience" question yet again, when all previous debates have answered that in the affirmative, including one that was closed on 30 August 2020. --RexxS (talk) 18:58, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf (re Pseudoscience)
If the arbitrators feel that explicitly declaring this (or any) topic as pseudoscience would be a content decision, an alternative option would be to allow the discretionary sanctions to be applied to topics that are described as pseudoscience in independent reliable sources even if that status is disputed. In other words saying that the DS applies to subject areas that are or are called pseudoscience so that the application of DS itself does not require a determination of whether it is or is not pseudoscience and the application of DS does not mean that Wikipedia is necessarily calling something pseudoscience. Thryduulf (talk) 11:14, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Re Shashank5988 I'd forgotten about that case, but discretionary sanctions are indeed authorised for "Complimentary and alternative medicine" and would seem to be a good fit. The Ayurveda article describes it as "an alternative medicine system" and a look at the current talk page suggests that this characterisation is not disputed. Thryduulf (talk) 13:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If there is or was a community consensus that the topic is pseudoscience then the pseudoscience DS applies. If there is active debate about whether the topic is pseudoscience then the pseudoscience DS applies. The alternative medicine DS also applies. If the DS isn't working then I don't understand what arbcom saying that the pseudoscience DS applies will change? In terms of content the most the committee could say is that there is a community consensus that the topic is pseudoscience (anything else would be a pronouncement on content that is outside their remit) - what would such a statement change? Thryduulf (talk) 18:57, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Shashank5988
Arbcom created Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture for subjects like this, to avoid the conflict between "pseudoscience" and "alternative medicines". Shashank5988 (talk) 11:46, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Statement by MrX
I agree that clarification is needed, inasmuch as a principle from a nearly 14 year old Arbcom case has been leveraged to assert that various subjects are pseudoscience based on ipse dixit declarations by involved editors. If my recollection serves me, previous Arbcoms have opined about this before (someone could perhaps check so that this Arbcom doesn't have to reinvent the wheel). Perhaps it's addressed in this FOF: WP:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience.

RexxS has expressed an understanding that, by my interpretation, would cast a broad net over a range of subjects making them automatically classified as pseudoscience based on (I guess) it being "pointed out in a discussion". I think it's self-evident why such an approach to dispute resolution would be problematic. If not, please let me know and I will explain further.

There are proponents with strong views on both side of the dispute at Ayurveda (note: I'm uninvolved). I would aver that simply because members of one side declare that "the position on Wikipedia is that Ayurveda is a pseudoscience as a matter of fact" does not make it so. Nor does it obviate the question in dispute: should the subject be described as pseudoscience in the first sentence of the article? Arbcom either needs to distance themselves from this reasoning or embrace it, because the ambiguity left by a nearly 14 year old Arbcom case has to potential to be weaponized in these disputes. This is not the first article where such a dispute has broken out. - MrX 🖋 19:51, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware that there is a serious dispute that Ayurveda is subject to discretionary sanctions. WP:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience says "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all articles pages relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted.". Does anyone disagree that Aruyveda is at least related to pseudoscience and fringe science?


 * However, that's an entirely different issue than your request which says "clarification that the principle includes Ayurveda in the same way as astrology, and consequently that Ayurveda can be considered in the same light." In other words, I don't think you are asking if editors on the article are subject to DS, but whether the article can describe the subject as pseudoscience on the basis of the a principle written in a 2006 Arbcom case. - MrX 🖋 14:09, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Statement by My very best wishes
Subjects like Ayurveda are clearly covered by the decision on Complementary and Alternative Medicine. As about pseudoscience, it was another decision, with good wording: "Theories which have a following, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community".

In my view, no action is required here because the specific area of Complementary and Alternative Medicine is already covered by your decision. However, what qualify as pseudoscience in general is a good question. I think it is not enough just to say "if there is any plausible dispute over whether DS applies in a specific case". One must have at least one solid RS saying that subject X belongs to pseudoscience. Yes, there are such sources in the case of Ayurveda, although the consensus of RS seems to be this is just a traditional medicine. Should we label all projects in the field of traditional medicine funded by the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (a part of National Institutes of Health) as pseudoscience? I doubt. My very best wishes (talk) 15:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)


 * @Newyorkbrad. OK. So, if an admin thinks that certain edits (for example, about a book) might belong to pseudoscience, than it is covered by pseudoscience DS, even if there are zero sources claiming the subject belongs to pseudoscience (and in fact it may belong to mainstream science)? That seems too much, given that admins may not be experts in the corresponding area of science. My very best wishes (talk) 02:27, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * @Newyorkbrad. Thank you! Understood and agree. My very best wishes (talk) 04:36, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


 * As a side note, this is actually about content. I think too many subjects in WP are labeled "pseudoscience". This is a very serious label, and it must be exceptionally well sourced. Some of these subjects are simply not science, but a traditional medicine or something else, like Aurveda. Others, like Osteopathy aka Osteopathic medicine, implement at least some science-based procedures (one can follow this subsection of page Osteopathy to linked page Osteopathic medicine in the United States to realize this), and even completely mainstream Allopathic medicine was included to template "Alternative medicine". My very best wishes (talk) 21:59, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Sunrise
As far as I'm aware, the answer is that the pseudoscience DS apply regardless, but the scope of DS cannot itself affect how the topic is described in an article. This is because the scope follows the concept of broadly construed - the DS will apply because the question "does this qualify as X?" is itself an X-related topic (otherwise topic-banned editors could wikilawyer endlessly around the edges of their sanction). However, for the same reason, simply being within the scope of X-related DS doesn't actually tell us whether or not the topic is or is not an X. Quoting from WP:BROADLY (I'm the original author of this text, but it's never been challenged in the more than two years since it was written): "Broadly construed" is also used when defining the topic areas affected by discretionary sanctions. In particular, if there is any plausible dispute over whether DS applies in a specific case (for example, definitional disputes: whether a particular issue counts as a type of American political issue, whether a particular practice counts as a type of alternative medicine, etc), that is normally taken to mean that it does. For this particular case, while the article does indeed state that Ayurveda or parts thereof are pseudoscience as a matter of fact (and has done so for a long time), that is because of the strength of the sourcing as determined by previous consensus, rather than being directly determined by ArbCom. The specific statement at WP:ARBPS does apply, but I think of it as mostly being a confirmation that using the term "pseudoscience" is in fact permissible under these circumstances. Sunrise (talk) 10:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC)


 * @MVBW: Traditional medicine and similar practices become pseudoscience when their effectiveness is disproven and they continue to be promoted regardless. Except in the most restrictive definitions, promotion with a disregard for evidence or on the basis of an unscientific belief system will also constitute pseudoscience (non-scientific reasoning is being presented as supporting a scientific claim). With regards to the allopathic medicine article, the template itself may or may not be warranted, but the relationship comes from the origins of the term as a derogatory label used by homeopaths. Sunrise (talk) 15:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Aquillion
I I think the only answer is that all discussions of whether a topic is pseudoscience fall under the pseudoscience DS (that is the entire point of the restrictions, since that is the whole debate that requires DS in that topic area), and that, once the issue has been raised, the entire topic falls under the pseudoscience DS restrictions until there is an affirmative consensus that it is not pseudoscience. As long as there is reasonable doubt that it might be pseudoscience, basically, there is going to be debate of the sort that the DS were specifically created to govern. Obviously the applicability of the DS restrictions in that situation should not itself be taken as an absolute statement that the topic is pseudoscience, merely that it is at least under dispute. --Aquillion (talk) 19:01, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Vanamonde93 (Pseudoscience)
The determination of whether or not something is pseudoscience is a content decision that needs to be made by the community, but the determination of whether or not something falls under the scope of an AC/DS is very much a decision that is ultimately ARBCOM's responsibility. Making that decision does not require a ruling on content as such; it just requires ARBCOM to determine whether the problematic behavior that led to the authorization of DS is present in the topic under consideration. As such, this is a decision ARBCOM needs to be willing to make, regardless of whether another DS regime applies. By refusing to decide whether the pseudoscience DS regime covers Ayurveda, ARBCOM creates the possibility of endless wikilawyering with respect to the scope of such regimes, specifically, the argument that because there is not consensus among reliable sources that a topic is related to the name of a DS regime, that the relevant sanctions do not apply. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll leave it to RexxS to articulate what he wants from this request; but my statement was more in response to the many people arguing here that this would constitute an expansion of the DS regime, or that ARBCOM needn't bother answering whether Ayurveda is within scope here because Ayurveda is covered by the alternative medicine DS regime. I think both of those are dangerous lines of argument for the reasons I've given above. I think you (ARBCOM) need to make explicit that Ayurveda is within the scope of these sanctions, and moreover, clarify why you've made that determination. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * To be clear, are you arguing that pseudoscience DS do not apply to Ayurveda, contrary to what and others have said? Vanamonde (Talk) 18:36, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * With respect, that's not the question I asked. I'm asking whether Ayurveda falls within the scope of an ARBCOM authorized discretionary sanctions regime, namely, the pseudoscience DS. The scope of those sanctions is within your purview and no-one else's; refusing to take a position on that is a cop-out. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Guy Macon
I am not sure that this is a problem that Arbcom should try to fix, but I am sure that we have a problem, most of which is the direct result of OpIndia declaring war on Wikipedia and sending an army of twitter followers to the page.

An incomplete history of Wikipedia's previous attempts to solve this problem:
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
 * Talk:Ayurveda
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Archive310
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Archive272
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Archive266
 * Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 69
 * Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 44
 * Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 43
 * Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 28
 * Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 28
 * Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 27
 * Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 301
 * Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 244


 * Re: "It already has Extended confirmed protection, and why is that not enough?" We are still seeing a large amount of disruption. The protection stopped the flood of new accounts posting the same thing over and over, but OpIndia's twitter feed continues to attack Wikipedia and is encouraging posts to the Ayurveda talk page by twitter followers who have existing Wikipedia accounts and are already extended confirmed.


 * I am going to expand on what I wrote above ("I am not sure that this is a problem that Arbcom should try to fix"): I have yet to see a good argument showing that this is a problem that Arbcom should try to fix. We need multiple administrators watching over not just Ayurveda but whatever page OpInda attacks next (there is a list at User:PaleoNeonate/Watchlist Ayurveda). We need them to aggressively pageblock editors who were obviously sent by OpInda. I fail to see how any of this needs Arbcom intervention. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:57, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Question I occasionally see comments like "X says he scrambled his password, but we can't verify this". In such cases, is it technically possible to ask the users "are you sure" and then reset the password without telling them what the new password is? Or does the software not allow that? If the answer is yes, should we? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:49, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken
If the community has determined that Ayurveda is pseudoscience, then ArbCom - which does not make content determinations -- must treat it as pseudoscience and enforce against it any sanctions which are routinely used against pseudoscience. ArbCom has absolutely no remit to overturn a community determination about content. ArbCom's personal or collective opinions on the matter are completely irrelevant, since its hands are tied by the community decision.

That being said, ArbCom could exclude Ayurveda from any specific DS simply by changing the wording of the text and excluding Ayurveda from the definition of "pseudoscience" for the purposes of that sanction.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:32, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Statement by jps
This strikes me as a tempest in a teapot. I am certain that Pseudoscience DS apply. I also think that that job of arbcom is not to adjudicate content. I asked you all some years ago to vacate the nonsense demarcation that a now-disgraced arbitrator penned oh-these-many years ago. The time is now to vacate that. An arbitration decision that says what is or is not pseudoscience is just not a good idea.

If there is a reasonable conflict/discussion about whether arguments about pseudoscience is relevant to a page, the pseudoscience DS are relevant. Obviously, it is relevant to ayurveda. That is as far as arbcom should be moving. I recommend vacating all the attempted demarcation and letting the community get back to business. Yes, that means that DS could be applied to pages relating to psychoanalysis (this is eminently reasonable). After all, WP:FRINGE works pretty well now in comparison to when this case (to which I was a party) was decided.

Love, etc.

jps (talk) 00:50, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


 * To clarify, it may be that there are enough interested parties to warrant a full case for arbitration. I am not yet convinced of that, but in principle if we get a lot of BJP activists coming in and arguing for more kid-gloved treatment of ayurveda or vedic astrology or hindu creationism, well maybe a case. But right now I think we have things under control as long as y'all are willing to say that Psuedoscience DS apply where the people here are claiming they apply. jps (talk) 00:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Oh, and in case you need a clearer exhortation, it's this: REMOVE SPECIFIC MENTION OF BOTH ASTROLOGY AND PSYCHOANALYSIS FROM THIS ARBCOM CASE'S RULINGS. This isn't because I disagree with those rulings (though, in the case of psychoanalysis, it is something with which I disagree), it is simply because arbcom doesn't make these kinds of determinations any more. jps (talk) 00:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman
It is troubling that discretionary sanctions are still in force for a case that is 14 years old. Shouldn't these sanctions have an automatic sunset? The point of sanctions is to solve a problem. Once the problem is solved we should default to our usual rules, which should be sufficient. If a set of sanctions is in force for (to pick an arbitrary term) three years, and the problem still isn't solved, then it's probably time to have a another case to figure out why the problem hasn't been solved, and maybe change the sanctions to something stronger. If an area like American politics is a source of perpetual problems, then we should write that into our community rules and make whatever measures are needed permanent. Jehochman Talk 10:24, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Atsme
My views align closer to relative to not knowing what vitamins I should take, if any. As for the content and conduct issues, there appears to be some agreement that ArbCom does not exist to adjudicate article content; count me as a +1. On the other hand, my perspective about DS is that, in practice for the most part, they are neither resolutions nor binding solutions to resolve conduct issues because you cannot bind what is malleable or what was left unresolved. Isn't that why we're here now? DS obliquely, if not directly in some instances, regulate content because they create unintentional hurdles in an environment that is ripe for WP:POV creep, perceived or otherwise. AE grants admins super-authority by allowing them to impose irreversible sanctions against editors in a unilateral action at their sole discretion. In essence, ArbCom is throwing the ball back into the court of irreconcilable differences allowing a single admin to grab the ball and run to the goalpost of their choice (which creates an in the eyes of the beholder decision-making process) and they can do so with no concern of an interception or penalty flag. Most of us try to AGF but as a realist, I'm not quite convinced that decisions based on sole discretion are completely void of prejudice or bias - especially when it involves issues that already failed other DR processes. Give me a choice between sole discretion vs a panel of independent thinkers, and I'll choose the latter. Bottomline, my perception of ArbCom's responsibility is to impose binding solutions to Wikipedia conduct disputes that neither community discussion nor administrators have successfully resolved. . Editors who are elected to serve on ArbCom possess certain qualities that have garnered the community's trust, in part because they have demonstrated sound judgment, fairness and neutrality. There is also the thought that several heads are better than one because it adds an element of diversity. Some of the issues that are perceived to be disruption in highly controversial topic areas are "ended" (not always resolved) by a single admin making a judgment call, and in those cases, the potential for such decisions to be unknowingly influenced by POV or prejudice against an editor is highly plausible. The latter is why the community elected a panel - ArbCom - to handle the difficult cases. Somewhere beyond that is the reason we have so many essays. Atsme Talk 📧 22:36, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * - not trying to be contrare, but I am curious...isn't John Hopkins Medicine a RS? They make no reference to ayurveda as a pseudoscience, rather they refer to it as "a complementary therapy in combination with standard, conventional medical care." Also, EPMA Journal, which has an 4.9 IF and a Scopus CiteScore of 7.7 in 2019, states: "This review article concludes that traditional knowledge systems like Ayurveda and modern scientific evidence-based medicine should be integrated." And there's also Science Direct (Elsevier) which lists multiple books and chapters about "ayuverdic medicine", and this article, (https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-816347-4.00009-X), Chapter 9 - Potential Treatment Strategies of Dementia With Ayurvedic Medicines, and on and on. I know Science Direct is a RS, and they don't exactly support the POV that it's "pseudoscience". Atsme  Talk 📧 15:20, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Adding Who Global Report On Traditional and Complementary Medicine 2019, pg 189, which states: Traditional Medicine (TM)  and  Complementary  and  Alternative  Medicine  (CAM):“Traditional  medicine”  is a comprehensive term used to refer to both various forms of indigenous medicine and to TM systems such  as  traditional  Chinese  medicine,  Indian  ayurveda,  and  Arabic  unani  medicine. Atsme  Talk 📧 15:31, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by ProcrastinatingReader

 * The community can't really decide if a topic fits under a DS. They can make content decisions, but not this determination. That's made by uninvolved admins by an authority that descends from ArbCom.
 * If an abuse of admin discretion was suggested at ARCA, some criteria to determine whether the article was in scope would probably apply (even if only implicit; obviously it would be inappropriate to apply PSDS to Banana). That would be as much of a content decision as deciding whether Ayurveda fits the bill under the psuedoscience DS.
 * This particular case is probably resolved by Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture. It does not necessarily fix the underlying issue. Arbs have suggested the Acupuncture case as being relevant to Ayurveda and thus resolving this issue, which means they consider Ayurveda as "Complementary and Alternative Medicine". According to our articles, "Alternative Medicine" is a subtype of pseudoscience (indeed, it is by definition). In other words, that determination effectively states that Ayurveda is a psuedoscience in a roundabout way, which is apparently what the Committee wants to avoid in this case.

It's not a content decision to decide whether something fits the scope. Ayurveda obviously fits the scope, we all know that here, so that part isn't exceptional. What is exceptional is that nobody wants to say it.

Thus, I think the real lesson here is to create non-inflammatory scopes for a DS. Calling something a "psuedoscience", even under the language of WP:BROADLY, is perceived as inflammatory I guess, which is probably why Arbs don't want to say it. But nobody would hesitate clarifying NRA falls under "organizations associated with [gun control]". PSDS is probably the only active DS with a perceived inflammatory scope. But, as above, AC ultimately still has to decide if an article fits within the scope of a DS, because it's the only body that can, and it has to make this decision (even implicitly) every time it reviews an ARCA for scope overreach. Shying away from that for PSDS doesn't seem like a good idea. Easy way out seems to be a comment along the lines of NYB. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by JzG (Pseudoscience)
Is aurveda unambiguously pseudoscience? Is the study of ayurveda permeated by pseudoscience? Are these the same thing? That would be an ecumenical matter, but that is not the question here. ArbCom would not mandate that a thing is or is not pseudoscience, they would mandate whether it falls into the pseudoscience DS. Which IMO it does, per WP:BROADLY, because there is, at the very least, solid support in RS for the idea that it is.

There appears to be consensus that the term pseudoscience can be included in the lead, as it is well sourced and in line with our approach to other pseudomedical modalities (as shorthand, Supplements, Complementary and Alternative Medicine or SCAM). The main problem is an endless succession of new single-purpose accounts following a thread on Twitter, a side effect of blowback from recent statements by the Indian medical Association characterising people practising medicine based solely on study of folkways as quacks. This is complicated by the prevalence of ayurveda in India, whose pluralistic and multitheistic culture leads to an acceptance of quasi-religious beliefs as inherently valid. This lack of judgmentalism - a core Indian value - means that quasi-religions alternatives-to-medicine are accorded parity of respect with reality-based medicine, including by the government via its Ministry of Ayurveda, Yoga & Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homoeopathy (AYUSH).

Per 's points below, when the original DS were passed on homeopathy in 2006, it was considered thoroughly refuted by informed scientists but it was still actively promoted by national health systems. Since then, Switzerland, the UK, Australia, France, Spain and Russia have been through high level reviews and have recommended withdrawal of funding. In 2006 there were several homeopathic hospitals in the UK funded by the NHS. Now, there are none. Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy would not happen today, we would simply topic ban Dana Ullman.

The status of aurveda today is not dissimilar from that of homeopathy in 2006. Because it uses pharmacologically active doses it is more resistant to trivial refutation than homeopathy, but the trajectory is similar: it is a pseudomedical system with a growing base of evidence that its fundamental approach is incorrect, and, crucially, it cannot self-correct because any honest test of whether substance A or substance B is better for condition X gives an ideologically unacceptable answer: neither. The reality-based study of herbal preparations - "does this herb contain molecules that may have a curative property" - is called pharmacognosy, ayurveda starts from the incorrect premise that some herb is always a cure and that nothing else is necessary.

The DS are there to manage behavioural issues brought on by asymmetric motivation and the collision of quasi-religious belief with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. That is present here. It needs the provisions of DS now for exactly the same reasons that homeopathy did historically, and in 10-15 years' time these too will probably have become superfluous save for rapidly separating the occasional True Believer from the article. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC) [edited for brevity]

Statement by Petrarchan47
There is justification for a case here, but not because some Indians are pestering editors at Ayurveda with spurious complaints. A potential case should look at the behaviour of editors who have been misrepresenting sources, rejecting needed corrections, and defending the unsupported "Ayurveda (AY) is pseudoscience (PS)" claim as sacrosanct. Editors and Admins have violated WP:V and WP:NPOV to create the article that is causing so much distress. The Hindu Post has an article calling out the bias on this page, it's worth a look. The laughable idea being floated is that some unidentified tweet is responsible for the flood of criticism, as if to say critiques have no merit. Today in this edit, removed recent corrections to the page, referring to them as "bowing to the Twitter mob", and restored false claims, including a wildly inaccurate claim to first paragraph of the Lede, reinserting: The Indian Medical Association (IMA) characterises the practice of modern medicine by Ayurvedic practitioners as quackery. In no way does the IMA refer to all practitioners of AY in their statement. The IMA clearly states that some practitioners of alternative therapies in India are representing themselves as qualified to practice modern medicine, but aren't properly licensed, and they are (rightly) categorized as "quacks". Google revealed no consensus for "Ayurveda is pseudoscience", but rather justified removing the label. There is no mention of PS in:Merriam Webster, Brittanica, online dictionary, WebMD, John's Hopkins, NIH, or Cancer.gov Wikipedia is the only major source calling AY PS in unqualified terms. The WP community cannot override the scientific community using shoddy, outdated sources, misrepresenting sources, and WP:SYNTH: A look at the article LEDE: The theory and practice of Ayurveda is pseudoscientific Sources:
 * Psych Oxford Handbook of Psychiatry, 2013 - 1 mention of AY found: "These pseudoscience theories may...[such as Ayurveda] confuse metaphysical with empirical claims"
 * "Disenchanting India: Organized Rationalism and Criticism of Religion in India" (2012) book by Johannes Quack; paywalled, no quotation given

BODY 1) Today, ayurvedic medicine is considered pseudoscientific on account of its confusion between reality and metaphysical concepts. Source: 2) Ayurvedic practitioner Ram P Manohar writes that Ayurveda has been alternatively characterized as pseudoscientific, protoscientific, and unscientific, and proposes himself that it should be termed "trans-scientific". Source: 3) Research into ayurveda has been characterized as pseudoscience. Both the lack of scientific soundness in the theoretical foundations of ayurveda and the quality of research have been criticized. Sources:  petrarchan47 คุ  ก </b> 23:55, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Psych
 * 2009 transcript of talk, however Manohar says (Wiki attacks Ayurveda and Vaidya Rammanohar - His Rejoinder) he was "misquoted", and adds that Ayurveda "seems to have been very recently edited with some malicious intent". A look at April's Lede compared with today's Lede gives credence to this claim. Removed the following day*
 * Psych
 * Sujatha, 2011 "Such discourses may even be termed as pseudosciences"
 * Manohar, 2013 "Already Ayurveda has been characterized as “pseudoscience” by Beall in the wake of the sudden explosion of spurious publishers and publications dealing with research in Ayurveda. Although Beall is obviously biased against Ayurveda..."
 * Snake oil science: the truth about complementary and alternative medicine (2007) "nothing remotely similar to the energies of vata, pitta, and kasha has ever been documented in biology..."
 * - Respectfully, while WP may have once been 'just an encyclopedia', it now serves as the ultimate purveyor of facts for searches on Google, Siri and Alexa, who use the first few sentences of WP pages to answer queries about any subject. Thousands of Indians are rightfully upset since the recent addition of false, unsupported and disparaging material to the Lede paragraph shows up globally for all searches of "Ayurveda". There is a 2 week old Change.org petition with 10K signatures ("We are against wikipedia's statement which says ayurveda is pseudo scientific").
 * My attempts to correct one falsehood have been reverted by Guy M and Guy C
 * You might take a moment to review the sources used to support the "pseudoscience" claim. They are mere mentions by random authors, no substantive discussion nor any authoritative source is offered, because none exist AFAIK. The label was created by WP by ignoring basic policy. Only Arbs can curtail POV pushing admins/editors.
 * Interestingly, Ram Manohar shows that it is easy to cast modern medicine as pseudoscience if one desires. <b style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8"> petrarchan47 คุ  ก </b> 16:05, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, Ram Manohar shows that it is easy to cast modern medicine as pseudoscience if one desires. <b style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8"> petrarchan47 คุ  ก </b> 16:05, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, Ram Manohar shows that it is easy to cast modern medicine as pseudoscience if one desires. <b style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8"> petrarchan47 คุ  ก </b> 16:05, 12 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I have opened a RfC to discuss whether sourcing supports the pseudoscience label at Ayurveda. <b style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8"> petrarchan47 คุ  ก </b> 18:02, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I have shown that the IMA is being misquoted by editors and admins, yet no one has jumped to apply DS. This ARCA clearly shows there are questions within the community about the categorization of Ayurveda. My review of the sources used to support this contentious claim show me that there is absolutely no authoritative source, nor mix of them, that qualifies. I have listed the sources in the RfC with the cited material, and if the community disagrees with me, fine. To call my good faith efforts "disruption", and group me in with past, unrelated disruption, and threaten me for doing the work of a good faith editor is just sad. <b style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8"> petrarchan47 คุ  ก </b> 18:49, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Littleolive oil
It seems to me that arbitrations are a means to support that admins in highly contentious situations, that is, in situations which they cannot deal with on their own. So we have arbitration, and then perhaps a discretionary sanction so that the admins have something behind her or him when things get rough. Arbitration has declared some subject areas pseudoscience, those "which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience." If arbitration was out of step with the "don't involve themselves in content disputes" well it's too late. Whether Ayurveda is a pseudoscience, "characteristically fail[s] to adhere to scientific standards and methods" or is fringe to the mainstream science is not disputed by numerous sources. Arbs don't have to agree to anything here except to support something they in the past have already agreed on. I don't see the difficulty.

And we don't have to compare Ayurveda to anything. As an alternative medicine system it is thousands of years old so we can expect there to be a huge divide between those who practice or support Ayurveda and modern medicine. I would disagree that the trajectory of Ayurveda is similar to homeopathy. Ayurveda has been around for a very long time, predates organized religion, and physicians are still being trained; my suspicion is that it will be around for a lot longer. None of that matters, though. As long as Wikipedia has both taken the mainstream scientific view and Ayurveda fits that view, then, that's what we deal with in articles. If an admin needs a clarification in a situation that is beyond one person to handle what's the sticking point. (And as aside. I think at times we use pseudoscience and fringe as weapons. Fringe simply means something is not in the mainstream. Yet (possibly). Most if not all research begins as fringe and as non-compliant with our MEDRS articles.) Littleolive oil (talk) 22:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Gandydancer
I've known for years that the Indian medicine articles were hopelessly biased and I've also known for years to not even bother to make any attempt to remove what I see as the blatant bias. India does have doctors and nurses well-trained in western medicine but many of them leave the country because they can earn more money elsewhere and those that don't leave almost invariably choose to practice in the large cities. So that leaves most Indians with Indian medicine as their only choice. So what that comes down to is that we have our encyclopedia saying that most of the people in India are being treated by quacks using pseudoscience. The Indian parliament is not calling their practitioners of Indian medicine quacks. So either they are so ill-informed that they can't understand that only western medicine is real medicine or they just don't care about their own people. I believe that it is racist to call a good number of the Indian people either stupid or uncaring or both. Knowing what I was getting into, but never the less I tried awhile ago to change some wording that I felt was racist in one of the Indian medicine articles and eventually had to give up with many wasted words and a fair amount of wasted time. Quoting Petrarchan above, I was met with the same argument: "The Indian Medical Association (IMA) characterises the practice of modern medicine by Ayurvedic practitioners as quackery. In no way does the IMA refer to all practitioners of AY in their statement. The IMA clearly states that some practitioners of alternative therapies in India are representing themselves as qualified to practice modern medicine, but aren't properly licensed, and they are (rightly) categorized as 'quacks'." IMO both Petrarchan's and Littleolve oil's posts are both spot on. Gandydancer (talk) 03:16, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by {Editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Pseudoscience: Clerk notes

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



Pseudoscience: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I don't think the committee has to take the position that any particular subject is pseudoscience for DS from that case to be applied (that the status is disputed is rather the point). : others have noted that the Acupuncture DS could also be applied: would that solve the immediate issue? –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 16:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Any article where there is significant dispute as to whether it is pseudoscience is covered under the Pseudoscience discretionary sanctions: the article already carries the PS DS heading, and I don't think that loophole would carry very far. It seems the clarification request goes further in asking the committee to declare that not only does the DS apply, but also to classify the article subject "as a pseudoscience" (making a content determination) so that certain principles of the Pseudoscience case can be applied more directly - am I reading that right ? –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 16:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The existence of significant editorial disputes as to whether the topic is pseudoscience is sufficient for that topic to be covered by the Pseudoscience discretionary sanctions. In this context, I've withdrawn my question as to whether the Acupuncture DS could be substituted. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 17:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think you'll get a pronouncement from the 2020 committee that the topic is pseudoscience, despite what the 2006 committee might have said about astrology. The committee might be able to certify that there is community consensus that a preponderance of reliable sources indicate the topic to be pseudoscience and accordingly there is a consensus for it to be be described as such in the article, but I don't really think that kind of thing requires the committee, it can be done at a noticeboard or the article talk page. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 15:22, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * the topic would be covered by that principle to the extent that it "is generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community". It's not the committee that needs to make that determination, it's the editing community through inclusion of sources and community discussions (and from what you've outlined here, that determination has already been made). In any case: any statement made here by the committee is unlikely to affect the behaviour of the inexperienced editors which have been coming to the article/talk page. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 17:43, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the additional context. The article talk page is semi-protected until 12 Sept 2020, and a page was created for non-confirmed users to post. Discretionary sanctions are in place and enforcement paths are available. If the belief is that the community is unable to handle the issue administratively, it is probably better to file a full case that would allow for more and wider viewpoints (however my above comment re: efficacy applies). Since the edits of concern are mainly from new and newer editors, the wider issue (including the more recent developments covered in the ANI thread) could be heard at WP:AN so other interventions (general sanctions, higher levels of protection, etc.) may be considered by the community before asking the committee to intervene. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 15:41, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * A discussion of whether or not a given field or phenomenon is a pseudoscience should fall within the discretionary sanctions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm speaking of a serious discussion that's overtly focused on whether something is a pseudoscience or not, not of a mental reservation that might be present in one admin's head. We just need to avoid the circularity of needing to know the outcome of a discussion of how we categorize something before we can define the rules of the discussion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:24, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I am unwilling to expand the scope of pseudoscience especially in a situation where there seems to be some cultural bias--it his treated in some geographies as a science with long historical roots and academic underpinnings. Arb com had no business declaring what fields are pseudoscience, or restricting or prescribing the content edited in these or any other fields. (with the exception of such things as blp) Nor does it have any need to deal with ordinary disruptive editing--ordinary admin remedies are sufficient for that. What arbcom does have the right and responsibility of doing is declaring that some fields are so exceptionally disruptive that arb enforcement sticky remedies are needed. The original basis for DS remedies was that in some such fields admins would revert each other, creating untenable situations unless the abbility to do so were restrained.  The introduction of DS was successful, and did pretty much put a stop to that sort of privileged disruption. There may be some fields where this is still necessary--I might for example agree thaat American Politics is one of them,  at least for the next few months, and some ethnic conflicts, perhaps even indefinitely. It could conceivably be argued that  some forms of pseudoscience such as homeopathy are also. though I have doubts here--it has been so thoughly refuted. . I think the addition of any specific pseudoscience or other field to the list  should should be discouraged unless it is proven that ordinary admin methhods have failed to deal with disruption.  Ordinary arb methods have lately been dealing quite effectively with disruption,  as can be seen by the many fewer cases that need to come to arb com. In my view, adding this field to the list unnecessary; its advocates are a very small number of editors who can be dealt with by the ordinary admin remedies.  DGG ( talk ) 08:18, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I see a very large number of probable puppets, and ordinary sanctions, not DS, are quite enough to deal with that. DS had a possible role when there are persistent editorss getting repeatedly blocked; it adds nothing to the ordinary admin remedies in cases such as you mention.  It does not show a need to arb com.   DGG ( talk ) 19:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I did now look at the talk page. What do you propose to do under DS that you would be unable to do now.?  DGG ( talk ) 17:52, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thinking further since I wrote my original comment, I have strenthened my view on DS--I would never support using them even in AP, where they have served to discourage open discussion and influence POV,.  DGG ( talk ) 19:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * My personal view of whether ayurveda is a pseudoscience is irrelevant here. I'm responding as an arb, and as an arb I have no opinion about content. To the extent the original pseudoscience RFA was an attempt by arb com to give an opinion on content it was a erroneous decision, and we should not repeat their error. To the extent it dealt with conduct of various editors, it was a good decision.  DGG ( talk ) 22:20, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I thank you, Vanamonde, for your repeated question, because is has helped me make my positions clearer.  it is not within the scope of any arbitrator to decide the nature of a medical procedure. It is not for us to decide this, and it was not correctly within our scope to make any similar decision we made in the past. If the previous cases implied it was, or required us to decide, they were wrong--it is outside our area. Based on the discussion here, a few other arbs seem to  also refuse to take a stand on the matter. In particular your questions have helped me settle my position on the more general question of DS: I would abolish them, and then  there would be no more such questions. among other merits of terminating the procedure, is that it leads to inappropriate requests for us to involve ourself in deciding content. What  is  within the scope of arb com is to end the concept of DS, and the only reason I do not now propose it by motion is that I do not think it would have a majority yet.  DGG ( talk ) 04:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I can't decide what vitamins to take, so I'm in absolutely no position to decide if something is or isn't pseudoscience. Those are discussions that need to take place in a community process per NYB. Katietalk 13:27, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I would prefer to leave the decisions of whether something is pseudoscience up to the editing community when possible. However, it seems like the discretionary sanctions on alternative medicine are applicable here, so is this now a solved problem? GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:23, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * GW--what makes it impossible for the editing community to deal with the question? It already has Extended confirmed protection, and why is that not enough?  DGG ( talk ) 20:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Guy, I thought that might be the problem, but wouldn't it be solved by blocking people making disruptive repetitive postings, especially by using the new facility for blocking from a particular page. Any admin can do that as a normal admin action--it doesn't take DS. The only advantage of DS would be if these blocks were being reversed by other admins. Is that the case? What else do you suggest that needs DS? Or is it just meant to be a way of giving a very strong warning?  DGG ( talk ) 17:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm a little confused which of these comments are directed at me—please feel free to move this reply if I've incorrectly placed it. I don't personally believe that the editing community is unable to determine whether this subject is pseudoscience. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * so, looking at your last note, you do not expect any practical effect from this? They why bother? The decision to call is pseudoscience is an editorial decision and can be done regardless of what arbcom thinks about it.. (fwiw, as I thought I had made clear, I disagree with labelling topics as pseudoscience at least in the overly heavy-handed way it is currently used for this topic, and if the arb com decision is used as an excuse to justify it, we need   to revise most of the 2006  decision. DGG ( talk ) 20:38, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "why bother". Why bother making a clarification request? Presumably because RexxS didn't know if ArbCom was willing to answer one-off requests as to whether a topic is covered by a specific DS, which is understandable given that there is some general disagreement around whether we should. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:17, 4 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Whether or not the article should refer to Ayurveda as pseudoscience is entirely the decision of the editing community, a decision which should be based entirely upon reliable sources and not past ArbCom statements. Discussions about such language can be moderated under the DS rules, and implemented at the discretion of an uninvolved administrator. Beyond that, we have the "broadly construed" language to cover edge cases, as well as the DS authorized for "Complementary and Alternative Medicine" for when "Pseudoscience" isn't the right description. – bradv  🍁  21:14, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I don't understand your comment. What specifically are you asserting ArbCom is obliged to do? The only relevant remedies that I know of are listed at Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience and Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture, and none of them mandate anything. They just authorize discretionary sanctions, which still have to be enacted by an uninvolved admin. – bradv  🍁  23:52, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , you are clearly INVOLVED with respect to the Ayurveda article, having made your opinion on the substance of the dispute abundantly clear. Please leave arbitration enforcement to another administrator. – bradv  🍁  18:55, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The "broadly construed" language though originally a good idea, is now in practice used as a device to sweep as much as possible into the same bin where arb com previously decided we need not follow NPOV, but what we think as scientists ought to be the POV..
 * As a separate issue, anything that relies on DS will fail. The only way forward is for arb com to directly regulate conduct by removing prejudiced editors and admins, either from an area or from WP, not trying to adopt rules about just how disruptive they can be.  DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm indenting this, because it's intended as a reply to and   as my personal view only, to indicate my view of  the error of those who feel obliged to use WP to tell people what to do, though in that sense it is relevant to the question of whether WP should enforce a POV.  It's not really a statement by an arb as an arb, but I don't know where else to put it. A key factor in medical results is the trust the patient has in the physician, and this can be similar in all forms of medicine, rational, or irrational. A patient who thinks the physician understands them and is really trying to help will usually feel better, if only because so many conditions are self--limiting. A patient who distrusts the healer will probably not take the prescribed treatment, whether it's a rational or irrational prescription. The placebo effect is real, and, astoundingly, even if the patient knows it's a  placebo. Many of the conditions modern medicine purports to treat it actually has no proven effective treatment for;  the most common conclusion  in Cochrane, if you actually read it carefully instead of use it as a magic word,  is that the evidence isn't really good enough. ( I pretend to be rational, but I have for many years taken drugs for conditions I know could be better treated by exercise, because I really hate exercise; I finally did start to exercise as well based essentially on the charisma of my very sports-minded cardiologist. ) CAM is in basically a fad, but it is also in some sense a rational response to uncertainty-though I note that one oft he studies quoted was for depression, notoriously one of the conditions for which no one medical treatment can be shown effective.  And of course almost anything sensible or not, can appear in the peer-reviewed literature-, and any one who accepts it without knowing how to analyze it can not be trusted to instruct others.
 * A much better case for WP adopting a POV can be had with climate change. This is much closer than medicine to being an exact science. But again, any particular aspect in the science can have errors, and our entire view of things could be changed completely by any of a number of catastrophes. Pre COVID, I would also have said that this might be a case where we had to tell people what they should do, because the alternative was disaster--unlike medicine, individual choices could harm the entire word irreparably. We now know this is also true about public health, tho in my opinion the public health establishment forfeited much of its claim to credibility back when it advised people that gloves were more important than effective masks, because it knew there were insufficient masks, and it did not dare tell the actual truth, which was that all the available individual measures were close to useless.  We need a certain amount of skepticism, because most other people who have every lived, thought that they too knew what the correct POV about the world was, and almost all of them we would almost  all agree  been proven wrong.
 * All we can do is give people the available data, and the information and resources to judge its credibility. We can say what people in various positions who ought to be well-informed think. We can not judge from their standing in the world whether what they think is correct.  And we need a certain amount of modesty, because no matter how accurately and effectively we give people the information they need, they in practice on both public and personal issues are not going to act on it. (e.g. to go to a field where arb com has even less place, probably close to 100% of the people in the US know that the current president is a deliberate liar, and knowing that isn't going to affect how they vote in the election) We take ourselves too seriously. We're just an encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 03:51, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , there's too much here to discuss in this context, and perhaps we should take it off-line. But I agree that the way tolerance is extended to CAM remedies and supplements was a political decision based on no scientific principle whatsoever. As for placebos, --you are correct I'm going by tertiary sources & should do what I say anyone with the background to understand them should do,  which is to read critically the actual research.  DGG ( talk ) 00:31, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * . 1/. I've said myself, just above, that much of contemporary medicine as practiced is not actually scientific.  (My personal bias is to prefer it nonetheless, because it alone of the systems being discussed has the potential to be so, and sometimes is) 2/That WP is mistakenly taken as a reliable source  by most of the world is unfortunate. It casts on us a burden that we are by our basic mode of operation unable to fulfill. Unfortunately, all we can do about it is explain, and give disclaimers, and try in a reasonable way to not be grossly inaccurate,  or at least give a range of sources. We do remain the only popularly accessed information source which at least tries to give references, and that part of our original mission remains valuable. (despite the perennial attempts at WP:RS to compromise  honesty  by permitting only those sources the majority there    agree with.)   I came here as an academic librarian, trying to revise things to make them more accurate, and replace bad references with good. . After a year or two,  I realized that  this was too difficult in our environment, and have focussed since on removing the worst of the garbage, and avoiding fields where people believe so strongly in the veracity of their favorite cult that dealing with it would mean too much fighting. As I  did not come here convinced I could enlighten the world on what is  the truth, I'm not horrified when we fail at it.    DGG ( talk ) 06:04, 13 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm late tot he party here, but i have been following this. On the question of whether DS applies here, I would say yes, either from the Pseudoscience case or the alternative medicine case. I can't see the committee making the editorial decision as to which topics actually are pseudoscience though. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Clarification request: Pseudoscience (July 2021)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Tgeorgescu at 15:50, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Tgeorgescu
Are the sanctions from WP:ARBPS applicable to pseudohistory? tgeorgescu (talk) 15:50, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

The generic dispute is how fundamentalist believers want to state their own view of the Bible and of the history of Christianity in the voice of Wikipedia, i.e. against rendering the views of mainstream Bible scholars, which fundamentalists consider them to be heretical. But it also covers nationalist pseudohistory (e.g. Dacianism). tgeorgescu (talk) 16:41, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken
It should be considered that, more and more, the study of history, especially ancient history, is coming to be based on scientific data, and, as such, pseudohstory which directly contradicts that data or is not consistent with it should probably be considered to be pseudoscience as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Statement by DGG
In general, subjects in the field of the humanities are not suitable for considerations as pseudoscience, and I have grave reservations against extending them even into the social sciences. . There may be some areas and topics in history that are essentially pure conspiracy theories and fringe, but in general we can deal with them without the need for the pseudoscience special treatment.

But one area of the humanities is totally inappropriate to be considered pseudoscience, ever, and that is religion. The nature of the evidence in this field sometimes does resemble convention historical thinking, but often does not. I personally have a very strong view that  proving truth by personal revelation is never valid, and neither is proving truth by reference to the statements in sacred texts. People active in these areas from some traditions often feel the exact opposite, and it is not for WP to try to decide on this. Within the two religions I know, Judaism and Christianity, arguments about this question has been active on for thousands of years now, and is most unlikely to be settled --at least unless the traditionalists should somehow be correct, and the Last Judgment should intervene. What WP should never be doing is deciding on the status of religious questions. If there are multiple views, they must be presented, but the wording of an article should never imply that any one particular version is Correct. The 1907 Catholic Encyclopedia, of course, thought about this differently, and they had every right to.  DGG ( talk ) 17:35, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Pseudoscience: Clerk notes

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



Pseudoscience: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * My initial response to the question as posed is yes, they can be, but no, they are not always necessarily. It would depend on the claims. Scanning most of the topics listed at Pseudohistory, nothing necessarily stands out to me as 100% pseudoscience, but many could veer into that territory. "Aliens built the pyramids", no, but specifically "ancient astronauts traveled through space, and their technology can cure cancer", yes. "White people are responsible for all great historical achievements", no, but "Genetics prove that white people are superior", yes. Of course, if this is a jumping-off point to a specific dispute, I'm reserving judgment. --BDD (talk) 16:33, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the clarification. I agree that this would not be covered unless it veered more clearly into scientific topics. --BDD (talk) 01:41, 13 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Given the clarifying comment above, in this case, no. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:33, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think BDD summed up what I wanted to say quite nicely. Pseudohistory is related to pseudoscience but it's not a part of it. That said, if the same problems appear there, we can consider expanding ARBPS to it, possibly by motion. Regards So  Why  18:28, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I know we cover pseudo-science broadly, but the broad strokes in my head cover "anything that purports to be science, but cannot be proved through scientific method". Pseudohistory is different, it's closer to propaganda and conspiracy theory. Yes, they overlap, and there will be times where Pseudohistory can be covered in the Pseudoscience banner, but not generally. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 12:40, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * My thinking aligns with my colleagues above, particularly WTT. This particular instance would not fall under a discretionary sanctions that I can see. However, as BMK points out history does overlap with other fields and so it's possible that a different dispute may also be part of pseudoscience. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed with the above, it can overlap but it's a rather narrow scope for that particular Venn diagram, and in this particular instance seems to be outwith the "science" part. Primefac (talk) 18:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I interpret the pseudoscience DS authorization similarly to our article on pseudoscience. In particular, for a statement or belief to be covered by the pseudoscience DS authorization, both of the following be true: (a) the statement or belief purports to be scientific and factual, and (b) there is a reasonable argument (based on reliable sources) that the statement or belief is incompatible with the scientific method. Other disputed beliefs (such as those that don't claim to be grounded in the empirical methods) are not covered. If the dispute in question qualifies under this standard, then it is covered by the DS authorization; if not, as I suspect, then I concur with my colleagues that the DS authorization does not apply. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 06:01, 15 July 2021 (UTC)