Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience/Archive 3

Request for renumbering
It would be clearer and simplify navigation if the numbering of section "20.2 Findings of Fact" (in the Index at the top) corresponded directly to the numbering of the "Findings of Fact" section below. E.g. 20.2.5 Pseudoscience (at the top) is "Findings of Fact 9) " (near the bottom).

(The numbering in the "20.1 Principles" Section is OK, but the numbering from the "20.3 Remedies" Section is also non-corresponding.)

67.91.184.187 (talk) 01:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Clarification request: Motion regarding Iantresman

 * Permanent link

Initiated by  My 76  Strat  (talk) at 06:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Statement by My76Strat
On November 4, 2012, Arbcom enacted the following motion:"1) The topic ban placed against as a condition of unblocking in is hereby lifted. In its place, Iantresman is subject to a standard 1RR restriction (no more than one revert per article per 24-hour period) on all articles covering fringe science- and physics-related topics, broadly construed, for six months. This restriction may be enforced by escalating blocks up to and including one month in length, and up to and including indefinite length after the fifth such block. When each block is lifted or expires, the six-month period shall reset. Additionally, the original topic ban shall be reinstated if Iantresman is subjected to an indefinite block as a result of this restriction. The Arbitration Committee should be notified of this situation should it occur." filed Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement on November 9, 2012, requesting enforcement of Fringe theories/Arbitration cases, an outdated page that Iantresman is not sanctioned under. Furthermore, IRWolfie cites this talk page discussion as impetus for seeking WP:AE. Nothing in that discussion rises to a violation of the enacted motion. Instead IRWolfie alleges that Iantresman should be topic banned under existing provisions of the discretionary sanctions in place for the topic being discussed. and both indicate support for the topic ban. I mentioned that nothing Iantresman had done was a violation and that WP:AC/DS points 2. and 4. were clear that a warning was required first. then stated that since "Iantresman was a named party of the WP:ARBPS case. A party should not require a special notice that the discretionary sanctions of that case can apply to them." I am seeking a clarification to this prevailing premise. It does not follow that Iantresman should be subjected to an immediate ban without warning simply because he formerly was. Especially when no action was a direct violation of the sanction in place. I thank the committee for giving their attention to this matter. My 76 Strat  (talk) 06:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

@Thryduulf Your comment belies a tangential relation, actually elucidating the core of this request. Being aware of a potential for sanctions does not imply one would know they are encroaching the "event horizon". It seems intuitive that including the requirement (to warn) is a reasonable measure to alleviate this anticipation of uncertainty. Such a view is further indicative when considering the subsequent requirements that, "warnings should be clear and unambiguous", and they should "identify misconduct and advise how the editor may mend their ways". Instead of clarity, thoughtful editors are expected to accept misconduct happened without being shown where the transgression manifest. I would seriously like to know what specific action of Iantresman equivocates the crossing of an acceptable line. Was it when he asked the question, or when he offered his opinion? And if there is no right to be informed of this, failing to follow point 5, "Notices of imposed sanctions should specify the misconduct for which they have been imposed as well as the appeal process" become rather moot and seem a waste of effort to proffer. One day I suppose I'll learn my place, and quit asking questions myself. Until then, just ignore my prose, and be thankful the servers can accommodate the wasted bytes necessary to publish my babel. Regards, My 76  Strat  (talk) 00:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Statement by iantresman

 * I am equally stunned, that an editor can be banned:
 * 1) Under a discretionary sanction that has nothing to do with topic concerned. The connection seems to be: (a) Although the reference book states otherwise, we feel that the book is actually about plasma cosmology (even though we haven't read the book, and can't provide a single quote to back this up). Now, the article on plasma cosmology once had a particular category tag added, and although it was removed because it was incorrect, it was a sub-category of the category "pseudoscience" which was also incorrectly added in the past.
 * 2) Without attempting any other form of dispute resolution.
 * 3) Who has not edited the article concerned since 2006.
 * 4) For discussing an academic reference book republished in 2012.
 * 5) For making an effort to ascertain it suitability.
 * 6) For answering concerns about a source politely, reasonably and with extensive evidence.
 * 7) Who acted with civility throughout, while other editors openly claim that I am a liar on several occasions.
 * 8) While other editors state that it is unreasonable for them to provide any independent source at all, to support their concerns.
 * 9) While the same reference book has been used as a source for over 6 years without question, in other articles.
 * 10) The same author is cited in at least one article that has gone through two successful Good Article reviews.

I see why Wikipedia loses editors, and new editors do not want to join a framework where (a) calling someone a liar is acceptable (b) discussion is criticised (c) unfounded opinions are unchallenged (d) and the most contrived associations are upheld.--Iantresman (talk) 11:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * @IRWolfie I can't believe that you have just said that. You've implied that all the thousands of professional scientist working in minority and obscure subjects (ie fringe subjects) should be grouped under "pseudoscience", and treated as such. As Adlai Stevenson once said, "All progress resulted from people who took unpopular positions". Science is a collaborative exercise, not one person putting down criticism. --Iantresman (talk) 11:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * @T. Canens (TC) Is it me, or is it reading more like Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon ;-) --Iantresman (talk) 15:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * @IRWolfie Your diff suggesting that Aarghdvaark is "claiming the Physics of the Plasma universe has nothing to do with the Plasma universe", is contradicted by the contents of the diff supplied. You could find out why Aarghdvaark changed his description of the book, by having the courtesy of asking him, before jumping to conclusion. I suspect that after reviewing the discussion, he realised that it needed correcting. --Iantresman (talk) 18:24, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * @PhilKnight To this day, I have not edited the dusty plasma article since 2006, so I could not have edited or pushed any view into it. I did discuss adding a cition to an academic reference book in the talk pages, and I welcome your comments on how I could have been more constructive, after providing book reviews and peer-reviewed articles in support of my responses to every concern, including enquiring at WT:IRS. The citation itself referred to an appendix on the subject of "dynamics of dusty plasma", a competely mainstream subject, to support a section in the article on the same mainstream subject. --Iantresman (talk) 18:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * @T. Canens (TC) Since the category "fringe" includes "pseudoscience", you are giving exactly the same offence, by so labelling a subject. Since the labelling is often subjective (there is no scientific definition, and often no WP:V and WP:RS), we now have articles which are labelled as pseudoscience based on the opinion of a handful of editors, without even having to explain themselves in an article. That doesn't make the article a very good reliable source. --Iantresman (talk) 22:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * @Courcelles I think you need to give this a much wider discussion with the community. It doesn't look good that a handful of editors have decided this among themselves. (1) Due process (2) Transparency. --Iantresman (talk) 22:47, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * @Thryduulf When I was unblocked on 18 September 2011, I had no reason to believe that a month later, the Discretionary sanctions would be changed a monthly later on 27 October 2011. --Iantresman (talk) 00:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * @T. Canens (TC) I would be grateful if you could clarify the following, which seems to be missing necessary information. The "fringe physics" tag in "Plasma Cosmology" seems to fail Category on five counts (1) Categorization of articles must be verifiable (2) It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories (3) Categorization must also maintain a neutral point of view. (4) Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial (5)  A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define.  --Iantresman (talk) 00:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * @Courcelles Absolutely correct, editors have no business defining these terms, nor to which articles they apply. Editors and Wikipedia are not reliable sources. WP:V via WP:RS is the core policy, and applies irrespective of the subject. So why pick on pseudoscience and fringe subject? Conduct applies equally to all areas of Wikipedia. --Iantresman (talk) 20:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * @Enric Naval The terms are uncommon, not indicators of Plasma Cosmology. I would suggest that your read the book introduction (which states that it is not about cosmology), the two book reviews, and 20 peer-reviewed articles I linked to, where I could not find any hint that the book was about cosmology. You have provided no reliable sources of any kind, even though they are readily available. --Iantresman (talk) 18:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * @Enric Naval There is no dispute that Peratt has written about plasma cosmology (reliable source ). His own book is not one of them, as stated in its introduction, and as you, and anyone else, can check in the two book reviews I cited. --Iantresman (talk) 15:27, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * @IRWolfie Thank you for taking time out from discussions on changes to Remedy 13, to tell me that this is really about Strat's request to clarify the issue any issue with the notification. --Iantresman (talk) 17:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Statement by IRWolfie-
I agree with the opinions of the arbs here and the admins at arb enforcement, and I'm not sure why this was filed. Iantresman has been blocked twice before under the ARB PS sanctions and was a named party in the original case and was notified of discretionary sanctions.


 * Perhaps one related clarification would be to specify that discretionary sanctions fall under fringe science specifically as well as pseudoscience? The issues surrounding both on wiki are generally the same, and the two are so closely related that it causes unnecessary issues when something falls on the boundaries. I think it's pretty much already the case that discretionary sanctions falls under all fringe views; conspiracy theories, pseudoscience/Fringe science, the paranormal, denialism etc. I don't know if this has already been done, but is there a way to unify all the separate rulings Fringe_theories/Arbitration_cases into one clear set of rules? IRWolfie- (talk) 14:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

@Iantresman I don't see the issue. This is merely for administrative and arbitration purposes regarding user conduct. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Another Plasma universe/cosmology editor, Aarghdvaark, has turned up at Talk:Dusty_plasma. He/She has argued that the book has nothing to do with the Plasma Universe fringe theory. This is despite having created the original article about Peratt himself, mentioning in his/her own words that the book is about plasma cosmology : "He is influential in Plasma cosmology, having written a book on the subject, Ref: Peratt, A., Physics of the Plasma Universe, Springer, 1992, ISBN 0-387-97575-6". He tried to hide this prior to commenting on the discussion. Can this editor be officially warned about the discretionary sanctions as well? Cheers, IRWolfie- (talk) 17:49, 11 November 2012 (UTC) I will inform the editor of this comment. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:49, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * While this amendment has been open (and rather than bureaucratically going to enforcement or elsewhere);

@Iantresman, Strat's request here was to clarify the issue any issue with the notification, and whether there was any issue with discretionary sanctions scope. We aren't here to re-discuss what has already been closed at Arbitration enforcement, This isn't an appeal of the arbitration enforcement decision. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I am referring to your discussion about the arbitration enforcement case, not the motion, which has a separate discussion and the 7 necessary votes. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Statement by TC
I just realized that I made a couple mistakes in the part of my reasoning in the AE thread that dealt with whether plasma cosmology is within WP:ARBPS: I overlooked the possibility that the 2006 arbcom may have meant for the category membership to be determined by reference to the present state of the article rather than the article at the time of the decision, and I also overlooked the fact that Category:Fringe subjects without critical scientific evaluation was not made a subcategory of Category:Pseudoscience until January 2007. Happily, however, those mistakes did not affect my conclusion.

From the phrasing of WP:ARBPS, it is clear that the arbcom that decided the case originally on 3 December 2006 intended the term to cover the subject of all articles in Category:Pseudoscience and its subcategories, and I see no indication that the arbcom that passed the discretionary sanctions in 2008 intended to limit the definition. It is unclear whether the 2006 arbcom is referring to the article at the time of the original arbcom decision or at the time of the AE request, but this question is immaterial to this case. At the time of the decision the article was in Category:Protoscience, which was, at that time, a subcategory of Category:Pseudoscience. Currently, the article is in Category:Fringe physics, which is a subcategory of Category:Pseudophysics, which is itself a subcategory of Category:Pseudoscience. Therefore, regardless of whether membership in the pseudoscience category or its subcategories is to be measured at the time of the original decision or at the time of the AE request, plasma cosmology plainly falls within that group.

As to the merits, I found the diffs provided by IRWolfie- and Enric Naval in the AE thread to be quite persuasive. I think the misconduct sufficiently obvious that I will not elaborate on my reasoning further unless requested by the committee.

That said, I wouldn't object to expanding discretionary sanctions to cover fringe science as well as pseudoscience, as the boundary of "pseudoscience" is rather ill-defined, and this invites wikilawyering over whether something is "pseudoscience" or merely "fringe". T. Canens (talk) 14:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * @NYB: I would prefer not having to figure out whether something is pseudoscience or merely "fringe" (especially not having to do it by divining the intent of the 2006 arbcom...). The area comes up sufficiently infrequently at AE that it's not a big deal, but being able to quickly proceed to the merits would be nice. Also, many people understandably take offense that their beliefs have been labeled as "pseudoscience", a term that has more derogatory connotations than "fringe science", and I think that also increases people's tendency to dispute whether the "pseudoscience" label applies to their favored theory. I think it's best if we can avoid causing unnecessary offense in resolving a purely jurisdictional matter, as whether a particular viewpoint is pseudoscientific or merely fringe generally does not affect the merits analysis. T. Canens (talk) 20:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously claiming, Iantresman, that you were somehow caught unaware by the October 2011 motion which is essentially a purely cosmetic amendment? The point I'm making is that the topic unambiguously covers this subject, even on a very cramped reading of the scope of the topic (notice how I didn't comment on the "broadly construed" in the discretionary sanctions? Or the "but not limited to" in the 2006 decision?). Arguing about whether something should be in the category or a subcategory is neither here nor there. If it's in the category or a subcategory, it's covered by the discretionary sanctions. And I think you are being entirely disingenuous: you must know that plasma cosmology is within the scope of the case, not the least because, as several people pointed out, editing related to plasma cosmology is a large part of what led to the original arbitration case - which you, Iantresman, filed. Thryduulf, you make some good points, all of which are inapplicable in this case. Iantresman was banned from this area until something like a week ago when he managed to get arbcom to lift it on a 7-4 vote. This isn't your hypothetical editor who edited in the area four years ago, got a notice and then never touched the area again until recently, nor someone who has been surprised by an unexpectedly broad reading of the reach of discretionary sanctions. I gave the topic the most technical and cramped reading I can without doing violence to the meaning of the original decision, and the subject he was editing still fits comfortably within it. T. Canens (talk) 01:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf
This is possibly tangential to this case, but I think it important that the interaction between warnings and "broadly interpreted" is entirely fair. By this I mean that where a topic is subject to sanction (either generally or for a specific editor) but a reasonable person acting in good faith may not be aware of this, even if they are aware of the general case, then they should not be subject to more than a warning. For example, if a user is aware that discretionary sanctions are authorised for topic X, but they are not aware that article Y falls within this topic, then they should be warned of this before any action is taken against them for breaching the sanctions, especially if there was debate about whether the article was within the topic area or not. If the debate was consequential to (or even just post-dated) the actions of the user concerned should not be sanctioned for their edits ex post facto without clear evidence of bad faith.

Equally, consideration must be given to the age of warnings. Editors are human, and as such have imperfect memories. If a user was made aware of the existence of e.g. discretionary sanctions several years ago, and they have not been involved with the topic area since then, then it should not be held that they are automatically aware of the continued existence of sanctions. Other evidence may of course show they are aware, but the existence of an ancient warning on an archived (user) talk page does not indicate awareness on its own. Thryduulf (talk) 23:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Aarghdvaark
Regarding the book "Physics of the Plasma Universe" by Anthony Perrat, I did not read the book but originally wrote in the article on Perrat that it was a book on plasma cosmology. That seemed a reasonable pigeon hole for it then. Recently I followed the discussion at Talk:Dusty plasma and my conclusion from that discussion was that the book was not about plasma cosmology but was a text book on plasma. As John Maynard Keynes said: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" So I changed the article to say the book was a text book on plasmas (N.B. Perrat is not a fringe scientist on plasma, in fact he is a distinguished scientist).

The reason I changed my mind was based wholly on the discussion at Dusty plasma. Iantresman had put forward a proposal, or hypothesis actually, that the book was a text book on plasma and not a book on plasma cosmology. Following the scientific method, this hypothesis should be trivial to disprove - it is a published book after all, and furthermore has recently been republished by Springer, a major scientific publishing house. All it needed was some quotes from the book. However, these were not forthcoming. The discussion soon veered off into a discussion on cold fusion. I'm surprised that Wikipedia editors thought these arguments by analogy or Google were good enough, but they cannot be considered reliable sources to establish what a book is about. So Iantresman's hypothesis has been tested and has not been disproved. Ergo, the book is a text book on plasma and is not about plasma cosmology, and that stands until it is disproved.

Iantresman provided some sources to back up his hypothesis, but no sources were provided by editors arguing the counter-hypothesis that the book was about plasma cosmology. Since no direct quotes were provided by the editors arguing against Iantresman, he asked for a source saying the book was on plasma cosmology - and got accused of wikilawyering! This is Kafka-esque: editors with clear POVs, and who refuse to back up their arguments with reliable sources have managed to get an editor banned who has been consistently civil and provided sources. Rather than being banned I think Iantrsman should be commended for how he has conducted himself at Talk:Dusty plasma.

Extracts from the Dusty plasma talk page showing POV bias against the book's author Peratt:
 * No, it's not a reliable source to be linking as it's clearly fringe. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The Plasma universe is a fringe viewpoint and it will not be getting space in this non-fringe article per WP:ONEWAY. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see why we should insist i n using problematic books [Peratt's] when there are non-problematic books available. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Iantresman took this issue to Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources where he argued that the book is fringe, but how could he show it was fringe. This seems to have confused some people, some appearing to think that this indicates Iantresman believes the book is about plasma cosmology and therefore he lied, including ironically The Devil&#39;s Advocate! I rather think he was trying to do the work of the editors at Talk:Dusty plasma and showed good faith, if poor judgement.

I would also like to clarify the position of plasma cosmology in plasma physics. It is non-mainstream science now, but previously had support by some plasma physicists. There is nothing unscientific about it (being out-of-date does not mean something automatically becomes pseudo-science). The people who know about plasma are plasma physicists, so it is not surprising that there is considerable cross-over between people who support or supported plasma cosmology and current and previous work on plasma. Trying to expunge the record of the contributions of these people is I believe something which is against the ideals of Wikipedia.

I think the book "Physics of the Plasma Universe" should be allowed as a source for Dusty plasma, as the argument against it has not succeeded on rational grounds but rather by getting Iantresman banned. And on the evidence of the discussion at Talk:Dusty plasma I think it was perverse banning Iantresman for his contributions to the discussion. Aarghdvaark (talk) 04:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

@Enric Naval - have a look at Hannes Alfvén. It says there: "A study of how a number of the most used textbooks in astrophysics treat important concepts such as double layers, critical velocity, pinch effects, and circuits is made. It is found that students using these textbooks remain essentially ignorant of even the existence of these concepts, despite the fact that some of them have been well known for half a century (e.g, double layers, Langmuir, 1929; pinch effect, Bennet, 1934)". This is presumably why Peratt included those topics in his book, and he seems to have been vindicated because the book is being republished. As regards your question on the relationship between astrophysical plasma and plasma cosmology, a lot of current day astrophysical plasma theory (e.g. our understanding of the aurora) comes from the people who did plasma cosmology, so actually astrophysical plasma is a subset of plasma cosmology - but of course that particular historical fork has been air-brushed from history as being much too embarrassing! Aarghdvaark (talk) 08:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

@Enric Naval - p.s. the section Astrophysical plasma only talks about Birkeland and Alfven, so point proved I suppose. There was also Sydney Chapman (mathematician), but his theories were found to be incorrect in the end. Aarghdvaark (talk) 09:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Enric Naval
@Aarghdvaark. Iantresman himself gives the most damning evidence: "*Go and find yourself a book on "Astrophysical plasmas"; I doubt very much you will find mention of "double layers", "Critical ionization velocity", "Birkeland currents", and "Plasma circuits", let alone any discussion of their application to astronomy.". Out of 4 topics mentioned, 3 appear in the index content of the book. So, according to Iantresman's own definition, this is not a book on astrophysical plasma.

Iantresman again treating "plasma universe" as a synonim of "plasma cosmology". Bonus points for mentioning the book and its author in the same comment. "Peratt is not only an accomplished scientist, but also a leader in the field of Plasma cosmology (Plasma Universe), his academic book, Physics of the Plasma Universe has been reviewd in (...)"

(By the way, Astrophysical plasma doesn't mention plasma cosmology anywhere, it only cites Alvén for his less-fringe work. The relationship to plasma cosmology should be explained.) --Enric Naval (talk) 16:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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


 * Although I commented on the AE request cited here, the motion is on a broader subject and I don't see any reason to recuse from enacting it. NW ( Talk ) 22:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Enacting below motion. NW ( Talk ) 22:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I see no motion or statement that the discretionary sanctions in that case were superseded or relaxed. Absent that, they would still be in force, and parties to that case would be well aware of the possible sanctions and as such should require no notification that these sanctions could be placed against them. And while I am not unduly surprised, I do have to note my disappointment that a week after having a topic ban relaxed, we're finding new issues already. SirFozzie (talk) 06:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What SirFozzie said, in full, especially the last sentence. This is being appropriately dealt with at Arbitration Enforcement. No notification is required of a previously sanctioned editor. Risker (talk) 06:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thirded, a party to a case is expected to have read the decision, and should know the DS exist. There are no need for warnings when someone has already been sanctioned; the warning is there to serve as a "stop and think", and that was served by the case itself.  And, well, even though I opposed the motion to lift the topic ban, I'm stunned to see Iantresman causing problems this quickly. Courcelles 08:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The "pseudoscience" or "fringe" issue seems to be a serial source of strife. I wouldn't mind a motion that clearly places both under the DS system, and ending the wikilawyering on this point. Courcelles 18:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the admins at WP:AE have interpreted this correctly, however I agree a motion to clarify this wouldn't be a bad idea at all. PhilKnight (talk) 19:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The entire point of lifting the topic ban was to allow Iantresman an opportunity to edit constructively in this area. However, almost immediately after the ban was lifted, he started pushing a fringe view in a mainstream article. Consequently, the topic has been reinstated, which is the correct outcome. Under which precise mechanism the topic ban is reinstated is quite frankly less important, however as SirFozzie notes, the topic ban was applied correctly. For the avoidance of doubt, if it had been applied incorrectly, then either the community could have topic banned him, or we could have by motion. Finally, I echo SirFozzie's disappointment - we gave Iantresman a second chance, and he squandered it. PhilKnight (talk) 17:39, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't believe any action is needed on this request, though I'm not adverse to a motion to clarify if there is any genuine confusion or need for expansion of the sanctions authority in this area (I'd welcome further input from the administrators active at AE on this point). If Iantresman wishes to appeal the discretionary sanction that was imposed on him (reimposition of the topic ban), he may do so, though I am not suggesting such an appeal would be likely to be successful. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Motion
Remedy 13 of the Pseudoscience Case is modified to read "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all articles relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning." Existing discretionary sanction remedies that this motion will deprecate may be stricken through and marked as redundant in the usual manner. Enforcement should now be sought under Pseudoscience, rather than under previous decisions concerning sub-topics of pseudoscience, but previous or existing sanctions or enforcement actions are not affected by this motion.




 * Support
 * Asking AE to decide whether something is pseudoscience or merely fringe science is a waste of time; the concepts are so closely related that having the applicability of the sanctions turn on deciding which term applies to an article is a distraction at best, and pure wikilawyering at worst; this nullifies the issue, and puts the focus back on conduct, and not terminology. Courcelles 22:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Just in case there is any doubt. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Also, I've added two sentences to the motion: I've copy-edited this motion so that it says any previously-authorised discretionary sanctions that are subsumed by these new ones may simply be stricken and marked as redundant (in the usual way). If we think separate motions to deprecate those sanctions are needed (Homeopathy and Cold fusion are mentioned below as two decisions that this motion would deprecate), then please revert my copy-edit—but as this is a matter of keeping our records in order more than anything else I think it might be sufficient for us or the community to use common sense in deciding how to implement this motion vis-a-vis existing decisions. AGK  [•] 20:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 13:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * SirFozzie (talk) 21:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Kirill [talk] 23:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 16:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 09:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain

Arbitration Committee/Procedures states: "Significant or substantive modifications of the Arbitration Committee's procedures shall be made by way of formal motions on the Committee's public motions page; shall be announced on the Committee's noticeboard and the administrator's noticeboard by the clerks when first proposed; and shall remain open for at least 24 hours after those announcements are made." I think modifying an "area of conflict" qualifies as "significant or substantive modifications" and believe the prescribed steps should be followed as outlined. My 76 Strat  (talk) 23:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Arbitrators' comments
 * So this would have the effect of making all fringe science pseudoscience, and vice versa, for all Wikipedia purposes? I've just got a very bad feeling about unintended consequences of doing that, especially in light of past POV-warring in various areas.  I worry that the motion, despite the best intent, might end up with some poor outcomes, although I can't put my finger on any at the moment... Jclemens (talk) 06:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the intent is not so much to say that "pseudoscience" is the same as "fringe science," as to make it unnecessary to argue about whether a given topic represents one versus the other. But I would like to leave this open in case any members of the community have more input on how this motion might affect editing in these areas. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly, NYB, I know full well they're not the same concept; but the behavioural issues are quite similar as the topics occur on WP, and the time of the AE admins is wasted in dealing with arguments over which label an article deserves, rather than cutting right to what they are really being asked to do; evaluate conduct. Courcelles 14:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Community comments on proposed motion
 * It's not a procedure. Risker (talk) 23:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) This isn't a change to Arbitration Committee procedures, so the policy My76Stat cites isn't really relevant; nonetheless, I'm definitely glad to wait a couple of days for any additional community input before voting on the motion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I thank both esteemed members for correcting my perspective. It would be great if either of you would have linked the relevant guidelines that do govern best practices for adding or modifying an area of conflict, but I am aware that you could not; because there are no such guidelines. I have reviewed the guidance available, and the closest prose I could find are shown in my original comment. I didn't pull it from thin air either, but followed Arbitration Committee/Procedures, which seems to imply it is a "procedure", giving credence to "modification of procedures" as an appropriate  clause. I guess that makes me a "wikilawyer" too, because I'm curious enough to seek guidance, humble enough to ask for help, and bold enough to state my opinion. It does not sit well with me, seeing Iantresman silenced by a discretionary topic ban for identical conduct, nor that he has been adorned with a compliment of labels that arguably rise to incivility. Some of the rhetoric has been echoed here, by esteemed members who are apparently comfortable wielding a rubber-stamp opposed to examining the merits of an action at their fore. Therefor, allow me to correct my original statement to reflect the policy that is relevant; Ignore all rules where we are encouraged to not only ignore the rules, but to ignore them "beautifully". So much so, that there is no pressing need to even write them anymore. If someone does ask, call them a wikilawyer and show them the door. Regards,  My 76  Strat  (talk) 03:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * They are not modifying how the sanctions work, they are just applying them on more articles. That's not a modification of Arbcom's procedures. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Thanks, My 76  Strat  (talk) 14:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think this will really make it apply to more articles than originally intended; rather it just clarifies edge cases from doubt. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * An "edge case" is by definition is uncertain (ie. sitting on the fence). So while there may be good sources and attribution suggesting one side, and likewise for the other side, you're going to (a) decide for them (b) and then ban everyone who disagrees. That doesn't seem like (a) an accurate representation of the various views, (b) a good way to deal with them. --Iantresman (talk) 21:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The motion should also vacate WP:ARBCF2, since cold fusion is certainly wholly within the broader area of "pseudoscience and fringe science". T. Canens (talk) 23:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * And while we are at it, WP:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy can probably be vacated as well, as that topic is also fully covered by the expanded discretionary sanctions in the motion. T. Canens (talk) 02:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This may contain other relevant cases: Fringe_theories/Arbitration_cases (though it hasn't been updated recently). IRWolfie- (talk) 10:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Clarification request: Pseudoscience#Principles

 * The clarification request below is an archived copy of the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=573258068#Clarification_request:_Pseudoscience.23Principles original]. AGK  [•] 08:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

This request is about the following template found on many talk pages for articles and lists related to pseudoscience: Brangifer (talk) 06:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Initiated by  IRWolfie- (talk) at 13:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Statement by IRWolfie-
This banner is being used on article talk pages to imply that the arbitration committee has made rulings about content; i.e that the arbitration committee makes content decisions. Personally I was of the opinion that these were not rulings and not guidelines, merely foundational statements indicating some principals but with no binding or weight attached to them with respect to content decisions.

Examples of usage:
 * "... we have chosen to use the ArbCom to step in when intractable problems arise, and it's best to abide by their decision. In this case it involved a type of content decision, but one that does not override RS. ..."
 * This discussion where the ArbCom principles are used to imply content decisions:
 * The specific examples given in the principles have been used to justify arguments about content decisions and the implied ability ArbCom has to make such content decisions despite these content decisions being outside the scope of ARBCOM.

Can ArbCom clarify what their 2006 principles are meant to indicate and whether they establish or merely align with (in 2006 anyway) content policy and guidelines i.e Are ArbCom making content decisions despite this being out of scope (Scope of Arbitration: "it will not make editorial statements or decisions about how articles should read ("content decisions"),"), and have they in the past?

Depending on the response, ArbCom may wish to remove wording which implies content decisions, particularly with respect to the specific examples. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

@Barney, who/what are you quoting when you say: "not discussing individual content". ArbCom can make no content rules at all whether for individual cases or not, IRWolfie- (talk) 21:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

@SteveMcCluskey, the specific articles you describe, such as astrology and parapsychology do receive advocates who attempt to push their views. For example on the astrology article there was an extremely large amount of disruption during a period ranging from last year to 2 years ago Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive681Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive222Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive99 Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive118. Calling the main articles of very notable pseudoscience topics, which have many related derivative articles (at least ~500 astrology articles) and their own wikiprojects "ancillary" seems a bit strange, IRWolfie- (talk) 12:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by A Quest for Knowledge
I'm not sure what to make of this request because there are two separate, though related issues at the article in question, List of topics characterized as pseudoscience. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) The first is whether ArbCom can make content decisions and whether this is an example of that. I'm in agreement with IRWolfie- that ArbCom cannot make content decisions.  I'm undecided on whether this is an example of this.
 * 2) The second issue is whether this text should be in the header instructions on the List of topics characterized as pseudoscience talk page. IRWolfie- has WP:BOLDly removed these instructions.  Two editors, me and BullRangifer have objected.  This text - regardless of its origin - has long standing consensus and should not be removed without consensus.  I think that the principles outlined by ArbCom are sound and should stay in the header instructions.  It doesn't matter to me whether ArbCom wrote them or somebody else.  Its authorship is irrelevant.  To make an analogy, it doesn't matter Shakespeare actually wrote Hamlet or somebody else; Hamlet would still be a great play.  I want to be sure to make a point of this, that regardless of what ArbCom decides on issue #1, it in no way affects issue #2.
 * BTW, I just noticed that these header instructions are also on WP:FRINGE's talk page (albeit with slightly different wording/formatting). While I realize that talk page instructions on a Wikipedia policy/guideline is not "official" policy/guideline, it does indicate to me that these instructions have community support, and therefore should stay.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I was bold and implemented the suggestion by Roger Davies. AQFK (talk) 09:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by BullRangifer
I have no problem with the template outlining the ArbCom decision about how to deal with pseudoscience. While in the end it is the community which makes decisions, we have chosen to use the ArbCom to step in when intractable problems arise, and it's best to abide by their decision. In this case it involved a type of content decision, but one that does not override RS. Their decision was more of a method for preventing the chaos and abuse which was a serious problem at the time, than a content decision. Using the four groupings for encyclopedic format is actually very wise and avoids problems. While the four groups aren't strictly "demarcations" in the Demarcation problem sense, they are very closely related to it. For practical "encyclopedic format" purposes we can still use them for "categorization" or "no categorization" because RS is another matter entirely. We must use RS for ALL content anyway, regardless of group.

One thing really cool about the template is how it stopped the chaos which reigned before the decision. If we stop following that advice, we ruin the delicate balance which has existed for several years, and open the Pandora's box which ArbCom closed and unleash some awful times of disruption. "If it's not broken, don't fix it," and it's not really broken, when we understand the purpose of the template and the ArbCom decision.

I understand how the itch (to categorically state that some nonsense "is" pseudoscience) demands to be scratched (I feel it too... ), but I think we need to resist that urge except in clear cases where the RS are clearly and dominantly of that opinion. We can still satisfy that itch for certain types of clear nonsense using groupings 1 & 2. Otherwise we can still document what RS say, including mentioning that some sources consider a subject to be pseudoscience, without including the article in Category:Pseudoscience. The ArbCom decision (group 3) still allows for that. Group 4 prevents the abuse by pushers of pseudoscience (pseudoskeptics) who insist on trying to sneak their fringe POV into mainstream articles about well established science. Group 4 prevents them from adding their fringe POV that a mainstream science subject is pseudoscience when it clearly is not.

So I support use of the template on relevant articles and lists, as well as following the good ArbCom decision. It's value has been proven now for several years. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I have taken the comments and suggestions found here and below into account and have sought to improve the template with some tweaks. So far it's actually been a box, which appears in slightly different version across many talk pages, so I've created a new template for the purpose:

  produces this:

You are all welcome to go to the talk page where we can seek further improvement. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Note that I have included AGK's suggestion below: "The reminder notice seems acceptable to me, and does not seem like it implies this committee has "ruled on content" in the area of pseudoscience. At most, the notice could be qualified by changing the first sentence so it reads "issued several rulings (which may be helpful to editors of this article)" – thus making clear that the principles are not enforceable pieces of quasi-policy."


 * Now it reads: "guidelines and several rulings which may be helpful to editors." Good advice is always welcome. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you Roger. "Guidelines" has also been substituted for "rulings". Definitely improvements. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:28, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

SteveMcCluskey, I fear you fail to understand the purpose of the template. It is a guide for editors, and for those who come to those articles to push a fringe POV it can serve as a heads up. That happens quite often. If you will read my edit summaries, you will see that the talk pages where I placed the template are articles which are main articles for subjects in Category:Pseudoscience or main articles for some of its subcategories. It has nothing to do with whether an article is favorable toward or advocates pseudoscientific ideas, only that it is closely related to them, closely enough that the articles have been placed under the PSI category tree. If they should be removed from the category, deal with that in the appropriate place, not here.

You mention Astrology and Parapsychology as if I shouldn't have placed the template there, but those are classic examples of pseudoscience, and are correctly placed in the PSI category. If the template belongs anywhere, it's there, and your objection proves my point. ArbCom even used astrology as an example of something "Generally considered pseudoscience" - "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." ArbCom thought it was a good idea, and the community has totally accepted their good judgment in the matter.

If I went too far in some cases, it is only because an article is possibly miscategorized, and that's not my fault. I was not indiscriminately spamming the template. I have acted in complete good faith. As I explained at Talk:Flat Earth, categorization might be the issue there, but we also know that belief in a flat earth is a pseudoscientific idea. We know that the category tree structure is at times confusing and inconsistently applied, so this could be an issue, and it should be discussed there, not here. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Steve, I see you have commented at Talk:Flat Earth. That's good. The issue of sanctions only comes into play if an editor starts pushing fringe POV or is disruptive in such attempts. Otherwise there is nothing to fear. I have many times seen otherwise peaceful articles suddenly become hotbeds of disruption because of fringe POV pushers who seek to include pseudoscientific ideas or shift the focus of an otherwise neutral presentation so it favors a PSI POV. That's when ANY admin can point to the sanctions (and editors who see the template have been forewarned...) and give a clear warning. If that warning is ignored, the hammer has fallen many times. The sanctions are applied extremely BROADLY, even on subjects not directly related to PSI, but related to medical and scientific fringe ideas. So, to sum this up, it has nothing to do with the state of the article, but to editor behavior, even on the most peaceful and uncontroversial articles. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Steve, regarding the discretionary sanctions link, that link wasn't originally part of the box, but was a separate template which nearly always accompanied it. Since they belong together, I just combined them, and in fact simply included the template to the existing sanctions template which I did not create. It was created by ArbCom member NuclearWarfare. It is a milder version than another one which is often used:


 * I could have included that one, but I didn't. That one has been used on article talk pages as a general notice and on editor talk pages as a personal warning. Actually that one is more explanatory and should clear up your misunderstandings. It shows that the sanctions are clearly directed at user behavior in editing and commenting, and not at the exact article content. The content can be totally uncontroversial. If you had been here as long as many of us and been as involved in these subject, you would have known this. I chose NuclearWarfare's smaller template which mentions the article and users can follow the links if they choose.


 * Note that I have not created any of these boxes/templates, including the present one under discussion. I have only taken a widely used box and made it a template because editors who had no understanding of the ArbCom decision were making unfortunate tweaks. Now, after these discussions, I have replaced the box with the template which has been tweaked and greatly improved according to the suggestions here, and in some cases added it to some other articles which I thought would need it. In those cases, if it's not appropriate, we can remove the template, but the article should also be removed from the category, and that's a more serious matter. Again, I have not placed those articles in the category, so your wrath is still misplaced.


 * If having that sanctions link disturbs you so much, why don't you get ArbCom to drop the idea of sanctions entirely. You seem to have more of a beef with them than with me, but are making me the subject of your wrath. The community has been fine with the ArbCom decisions for many years, and the instructions and sanctions have served us very well. You seem to fail to understand the history here and rolling back this progress would lead to unfortunate consequences. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:01, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Barney the barney barney

 * 1) I don't see a problem with the arbcom "not discussing individual content", because the banner text doesn't do this either, and is general in nature.
 * 2) Quoting the arbcom decision is like quoting a legal precedent.  The new case needn't have exactly the same circumstances as previous case, but a good lawyer involved in the new case should be aware of the previous case, and if appropriate make reference to them.  This stops us having the same conversation over and over again.
 * 3) Fringe topics are not for either (1) new editors (who do not understand the policies or how they're implemented) or (2) the feint-hearted (this perhaps ought not to be the case, but we have to deal with the reality not the ideology).  A banner that makes this clear is helpful to anyone who falls into either of these categories. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Enric Naval
One comment: in the template, the link "several rulings" is very outdated. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that with SteveMcCluskey that the template should only be in articles where there have been problems. Otherwise, it looks like we are trying to dictate how editing should be done. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by NE Ent
@Risker -- you're correct. The internet has trained folks not to read banners banners are invisible NE Ent 02:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by SteveMcCluskey
I am a bit disturbed that in the past few days this template has been applied to many articles that discuss pseudoscientific beliefs in an objective, historical, fashion without any advocacy for these beliefs. I came across this problem at the article Flat Earth but soon found that User:BullRangifer is applying it broadly to a large number of solid, historically based, articles, among them Astrology, Parapsychology, and many others.

The focus of Wikipedia's concern with pseudoscience is with the advocacy of marginal (often original) scientific theories. On the other hand, objective discussions of pseudoscientific beliefs have had a long tradition of being allowed in Wikipedia, ever since Jimmy Wales's comment, which is still quoted in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, that: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Wikipedia is not the place for original research" (my emphasis). Such ancillary articles have a legitimate place in Wikipedia and should not be arbitrarily labeled as being under discretionary sanctions, as the template does. This is especially the case since discretionary sanctions are only to be exercised under limited circumstances. In particular, the ArbCom Procedures for discretionary sanctions specify that:
 * 4. Warnings should be clear and unambiguous, link to the decision authorising the sanctions, identify misconduct and advise how the editor may mend their ways;
 * 5. Notices of imposed sanctions should specify the misconduct for which they have been imposed as well as the appeal process;

I recommend that either this template be disapproved or that the ArbCom provide appropriate guidelines as to when and where it should be used. In particular, it seems to have no place in objective, historical discussions of pseudoscientific practices. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 03:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Reply to Brangifer: The template as it stands is seriously misleading. It says "This article is subject to discretionary sanctions."  That can be read either to mean that the article has already been placed under discretionary sanctions or that it may be placed under discretionary sanctions in the future.  In particular, I note that according to ArbCom procedures quoted above, warnings concerning sanctions must "identify misconduct and advise how the editor may mend their ways".


 * This template has been preemptively inserted in the talk pages of a wide range of articles, apparently without reading them or their talk pages but solely on the basis of the categories in which these articles have been placed. In these cases no misconduct has been identified, but the warning reflects the editor's concern lest "otherwise peaceful articles suddenly become hotbeds of disruption because of fringe POV pushers who ... shift the focus of an otherwise neutral presentation so it favors a PSI POV."  Placing such a sanctions warning on otherwise solid historical article is a glaring example of instruction creep, and seems to be in itself disruptive of otherwise peaceful articles.  It seems more likely to stir up problems than to quell them.


 * I consider that such sanctions warnings should only be posted on talk pages of articles that have, in fact, demonstrated problems in advancing a pseudoscientific point of view and that the issuance of such sanctions warnings should be restricted to the action of an "uninvolved administrator", as per ArbCom policy. (I note here that Brangifer is neither an admin nor is he uninvolved in the disputes concerning pseudoscience but appears to be an advocate for a particular view of science.)  Furthermore, the template, if it is to continue, should make it clear that objective, historical discussions of pseudoscientific theories are welcome in Wikipedia rather than vaguely threatening editors with sanctions.  --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 12:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Brangifer suggests that my dispute is with ArbCom for introducing the concept of sanctions. Not at all.  My dispute is with Brangifer for creating and using a template in such a fashion as to widely extend the sanctions for advocacy of pseudoscience to articles that merely describe it.  He's right, however, that this is an issue for ArbCom to decide rather than one for us to debate.  I've posted my position; he and others have posted theirs here and at Talk:Flat_Earth.  I look forward to a decision from ArbCom on this template, its form, and its use.  Thanks --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * A note by Roger Davies, elsewhere on this page, has drawn my attention to the ongoing discussion of revising the discretionary sanctions procedure. In particular it proposes changes regarding alerting editors and placing edit notices on controversial articles.  Concerning notices on articles, the proposed draft currently stipulates that "Enforcing administrators are required to place an edit notice on any page which they have placed restrictions.… All page restrictions must be logged."
 * Since those changes will influence the use of this template, it seems wise to suspend its use (and perhaps this discussion) until ArbCom resolves that more general question. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 14:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply about the changes to the user warning template, Template:Uw-sanctions. Those definitely improved the tone of that template.  However, the concern that brought me to this discussion was the sudden on a large number of article talk pages of a different template, Template:ArbComPseudoscience, which is portrayed in the Statement by BullRangifer, above.
 * At the moment I am involved in a proposal to shorten and tone down that template, along the lines of the user warning template, Template:Uw-sanctions, which you may wish to look at. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 18:05, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

A note on the discretionary sanctions template by Bishonen
There has been considerable discussion about the phrase "if you continue to misconduct yourself" in the discretionary sanctions template. People have understandably resented having that phrase applied to them, and for me it's always been a reason why I feel unable to use the template to simply warn somebody that there are discretionary sanctions for an article they've edited. Surely a mere warning doesn't have to be so accusatory? I was quite surprised to see the words "continue to" still in there after all the discontent voiced, and even in the putatively milder (?) version quoted above. FGS get rid of those two words. It would improve the template 100%, and make it possible to post it even on people we don't particularly want to scold and antagonize. Even better if we also get rid of the strangely stilted and heavy-Victorian-parent-sounding locution "misconduct yourself". How about "If you edit inappropriately on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks" etc etc ? Bishonen &#124; talk 20:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC).

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Principles are used to elucidate the thinking that underlies the findings of fact and remedies in arbitration final decisions. For example, if we topic ban somebody for repeatedly pushing a nationalist point of view, it would be helpful to state clearly that NPOV is a core principle of Wikipedia and POV-pushing is unacceptable. Principles frame the substantive components of our decision, and may clarify how policy should be interpreted in certain novel situations, but (as IRWolfie states) they are emphatically not enforceable rulings. Nevertheless, it is clear to me that the principles in our decisions can be helpful reminders of the policies that are particularly relevant to certain topic areas, even when the remedies and findings of fact have long since become irrelevant. I therefore have no objection to them being cited in a general reminder notice such as the one referred to in this clarification request. The reminder notice seems acceptable to me, and does not seem like it implies this committee has "ruled on content" in the area of pseudoscience. At most, the notice could be qualified by changing the first sentence so it reads "issued several rulings (which may be helpful to editors of this article)" – thus making clear that the principles are not enforceable pieces of quasi-policy. AGK  [•] 13:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It won't be possible to suspend the use of that template while we conduct our review. The review will take too long and the template is too widely used. In any event (ping ) my colleague NuclearWarfare [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AUw-sanctions&diff=572866428&oldid=553680098 recently made a change] to the template that should reduce your concern for now. AGK  [•] 10:12, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The header seems a bit outdated and isn't really designed how we normally do things anymore. But while I wouldn't mind some good rigorous cleanup, I also agree with BullRangifer and AGK above. NW ( Talk ) 01:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The principles in an arbitration decision reflects the committee's interpretation of the relevant policies and guidelines at the time the case was decided; they are neither policy by themselves nor binding. Principles adopted in very old cases, in particular, may well be overtaken by subsequent changes in the relevant policy or guideline. That said, however, these principles may be of persuasive value, and if the community finds the formulation in a principle useful, they are free to adopt it, but that would be the community's choice, and not the committee's. T. Canens (talk) 05:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the header should be tweaked to "Arbitration Committee decisions on Pseudoscience", and abandon the "ruling" altogether? That makes it clearer that it's advisory. No view on whether it is desirable to add this template to articles.  Roger Davies  talk 06:39, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we're done on this one; I'll ask the clerks to archive it.  Roger Davies  talk 04:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * While I mostly agree with my colleagues, the fact of the matter is that banners that densely written (even with the blue links in them) are a classic "tl;dr". The contents are fine, but I'm not persuaded that there will be any better comprehension than if the banner was reduced to fewer than 6 lines. Risker (talk) 01:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Personally I would prefer such banners to refer directly to the appropriate guidelines and policies rather than via the lens of ArbCom - especially when the referenced ArbCom discussions are somewhat older than the latest version of the policy or guideline that was quoted at the time.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  14:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Clarification on Discretionary Sanctions
I just have a question and since I am only recently aware of these DS, I hope the ARBCOM can forgive my newbie question.

These sanctions are based on disruptive behavior, like edit-warring or 3R, right? So, DS would apply equally to anyone who is disruptive on articles judged to be "pseudoscience" or "fringe", correct? Because ARBCOM typically doesn't arbitrate content disputes and silence people with particular viewpoints, ARBCOM's aim to allow and encourage Wikipedia to operate free of rancor and bad behavior.

Yes, I've read all of the principles posted above and, no, I'm not arguing for an "everything goes", no standards guide for Wikipedia. I'm just asking about whether Discretionary Sanctions are applied to disruptive Editors on all sides of the pseudoscience dispute area or were they intended to just target Editors who held particular points of view.

Thank you for considering my question. And, for any page lurkers, I'll take an arbitrator's interpretation of the DS as being authoritative, not my own or any other Editor's. Peace. Liz Read! Talk! 20:20, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Clarification request
Pursuant to a formal warning I received yesterday from Sandstein, regarding some comments I made at AE in this recently closed case, my name is now listed amongst the warned users here. I made no edits to any article within the subjects that were part of the AE discussion, I stepped in at AE and chose to say something to a person about my view of their behavior. Sandstein immediately sends me this I asked Sandstein to retract the warning and he stated that he would not, and various drama thereinafter ensued. I am not here to discuss who was right or wrong in the broader scheme of wiki-land (that could be debated endlessly, no doubt). I AM here to request clarification for all as to whether Sandstein's warning fell within the purview of this RfA in the first place. I also seek this clarification so as to avoid personally stepping into a minefield like this again. (I was unaware this particular RfA and discretionary sanctions even existed until Sandstein's post yesterday) If his warning to me exceeded the purview of this RfA, then I wish it to be stricken from the RfA page. If it doesn't, I am unclear what this "warning" means... do I just have a "demerit" for a minor infraction or what? In either event, I also have a recommendation for future situations of a similar nature. Montanabw (talk) 19:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I believe my actions fall outside the purview of this RfA for the following reasons: Montanabw (talk) 19:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) My comment(s) came on an AE thread, not a pseudoscience article talk page.
 * 2) I made no statements on the underlying topic or issue at all
 * 3) I actually agreed that that the person who was the subject of the case was pushing fringe views.
 * 4) The issue I raised was a response to the tone at the AE post, not the pseudoscience concerns themselves.


 * Recommendations:
 * 1) I suggest that discussions at places that regularly draw outside, neutral, and uninvolved editors (such as AE, ANI, and other assorted guideline or policy pages) have an up-front notification at the start of a thread that a situation falls under the purview of this RfA before formal "warnings" can be issued under the name of this RfA. A comment such as, "please be notified that discussion of this issue falls under the purview of Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience and standard discretionary sanctions may be applied" might not ratchet down all drama, but at least no one can say they didn't know it going in.
 * 2) If you don't do this already, (can't figure out the decision in the closed discussion above, FWIW) perhaps the most contentious pages should also contain simple warning notices similar to the disclaimers on the Climate Change pages (Examples: including edit window note and talk page header: )
 * Thank you for your time. Montanabw (talk) 19:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

More what?
"15) Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more." Discussion? Paradoctor (talk) 06:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Justification. The "obviously bogus" sentence was a botched copy/paste from WP:FRINGE/PS.


 * Correct version
 * Pseudoscience: Proposals which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification.
 * Happy trails... 172.162.30.86 (talk) 17:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you and happy editing. Paradoctor (talk) 17:38, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Problems with the 'Obvious Pseudoscience' definition
First problem, with the start of the definition the statement "Theories which, while purporting to be scientific" implies that there is a claim within the theory itself that the theory is scientific even though that may not be the case. What if, nowhere in a given theory in question is found any claim that the theory itself is scientific? It does not seem fair or accurate to assign a label to a theory as purporting to be scientific just because it appears so from some point of view of some individual viewing the theory. Using appearance as a means for determining the property of pseudoscience is an inherently flawed methodology because doing so makes the error of using an empirical term 'appearance' to describe a non-empirical entity 'theory.'

Second problem, in the definition where theories are referred to as "obviously bogus," I would contend that the term 'bogus' is a weasel word especially when referring to something as complex as a theory. If, as pointed out in the above first problem, theories are not empirically verifiable objects (such as for instance an individual body part of a mammal that has the label 'pseudopod') how can a specific definition be made of 'bogus,' that does not utilize the emotional reactions of the skeptical set to given theory, that can be made part of an algorithm to determine bogusness of any given theory? Quarky Gluon (talk) 05:10, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Dermo-optical perception is not pseudoscience!!!
Dermo-optical perception is not pseudoscience since it is not considered as pseudoscience by mainstream scientifical community. Only some skeptical sources (like RANDI) consider Dermo-optical perception as pseudoscience, according to NeutralPOV only some skeptical sources can't define contents on wikipedia. Dermo-optical perception isn't included in the list of topics characterized as pseudoscience. Actually mainstream scientists are studying this phenomenon and have positive results like Larner (2006) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16887762 and Brugger et Weiss (2008) http://www.zora.uzh.ch/9087/1/Brugger_Weiss_J_History_of_the_NSCci_17_2008-1_V.pdf. Formulation like "baseless paranormal claims" are absolutely not neutral and outdated if we look at the source (1996).Thundergodz (talk) 01:21, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * You have written this on the wrong page. As for your rant - you have misrepresented the Peter Brugger (2008) paper, I have already discussed this on the talk-page of the article. Goblin Face (talk) 09:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)